Bone Headed Idea

[boston_e]

The Senate's role is to advise and consent, not rubber stamp. They may vote down a candidate. They may do it repeatedly.

That creates a distinct difference between when the Senate and the Presidency is the same party, and when they are the opposite party. When they are different parties, the nomination needs to be centrist enough to win enough votes from the minority party. If the Senate fails to approve any candidate, it's possible the voters will adversarially respond in the next Senate election. There is no requirement for the Senate to fill the seat if they do not consent to any nominees. In this case if the President does not nominate someone centrist enough, he bears much of the blame for losing confirmation.

Garland was nominated by a D president to an R Senate. While some complain no hearings were held and no vote was taken, it also spared Garland the inauspicious title of being only the 12th Supreme Court candidate voted down. You can debate that either way. McConnell famously stated an election was coming, and to let the seat go to the next President and Senate. I'm not sure McConnell's statement by itself establishes a new rule. Rather, McConnell's statement illustrates the existing rule, the Senate's ability to not consent. The Senate's role is still to advise and consent, and that hasn't changed.

Barret was nominated by an R president to an R Senate. The Senate consented.

This seems to be a period of heightened partisanship, and party line votes. Consider that Ginsburg was appointed 96-3. If the next seat opens when the Presidency and Senate are held by different parties, could that President find a nominee that would garner anything close to that kind of majority?

That is all well and good, but Garland was about as centrist as they come. McConnell and the republicans went out of their way to make it political. Do we really want to be in a situation where the only time a nominee will ever be confirmed is when the president and senate are of the same party? Because that is what McConnell and other republicans have created.

[Mister Moose]

That is all well and good, but Garland was about as centrist as they come. McConnell and the republicans went out of their way to make it political. Do we really want to be in a situation where the only time a nominee will ever be confirmed is when the president and senate are of the same party? Because that is what McConnell and other republicans have created.

I think when you blame the current extent of partisanship on just one political party, and one headliner in particular, you ignore history and the other components to a glaring degree. In fact, your statement is the definition of partisan: "prejudiced in favor of a particular cause."

[boston_e]

That is all well and good, but Garland was about as centrist as they come. McConnell and the republicans went out of their way to make it political. Do we really want to be in a situation where the only time a nominee will ever be confirmed is when the president and senate are of the same party? Because that is what McConnell and other republicans have created.

I think when you blame the current extent of partisanship on just one political party, and one headliner in particular, you ignore history and the other components to a glaring degree. In fact, your statement is the definition of partisan: "prejudiced in favor of a particular cause."

Of course there is blame on both sides.... but one party gets more than 50% of it and in this case with regard to the politicization of the Supreme Court, it’s not the Democrats.

[deadheadskier]

Protip:

Don't waste time challenging Moose with facts and truth

You can present irrefutable evidence of Republican wrongdoing and he will through eloquent prose try and massage you to believe Democrats are equally as guilty of the same grievance.

He's very nonpartisan though

[spanky]

Supreme Court should be expanded... not for political reasons, but for case load. A non-partisan way to expand the court would be to set a target number of judges and slowly add judges to that target over several presidential terms. Introducing term limits for the newly introduced judges would also ensure a consistent rotation in the future.

[Bubba]

Supreme Court should be expanded... not for political reasons, but for case load. A non-partisan way to expand the court would be to set a target number of judges and slowly add judges to that target over several presidential terms. Introducing term limits for the newly introduced judges would also ensure a consistent rotation in the future.

Some of the lower courts might be expanded for caseload concerns but not the Supreme Court. The last thing we need is encouragement for the court to hear more cases.

[Mister Moose]

That is all well and good, but Garland was about as centrist as they come. McConnell and the republicans went out of their way to make it political. Do we really want to be in a situation where the only time a nominee will ever be confirmed is when the president and senate are of the same party? Because that is what McConnell and other republicans have created.

I think when you blame the current extent of partisanship on just one political party, and one headliner in particular, you ignore history and the other components to a glaring degree. In fact, your statement is the definition of partisan: "prejudiced in favor of a particular cause."

Of course there is blame on both sides.... but one party gets more than 50% of it and in this case with regard to the politicization of the Supreme Court, it’s not the Democrats.

If you go back and do some digging, you'll find a lot of bitter maneuvering between Harry Reid and the Republicans. It was Harry Reid who blew up the filibuster for judicial appointments, and McConnell warned Reid at that time he would regret it in the future.

McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Garland was not an island, it was one step among many over decades. To view any one event out of historical context is to distort the context. Can you look at the Thomas hearings and say what you said? Can you look at the Cavanaugh hearings and say what you said? I don't know how to ascribe numerical percentage of blame here, I'm just stating that it isn't easy, it likely isn't even possible. Furthermore, it was Reid who famously put a knife in the back of Romney's campaign on income tax accusations, and then later acknowledged it was a lie.

Supreme Court should be expanded... not for political reasons, but for case load. A non-partisan way to expand the court would be to set a target number of judges and slowly add judges to that target over several presidential terms. Introducing term limits for the newly introduced judges would also ensure a consistent rotation in the future.

I don't follow this - if you increase the case load by separating the justices to hear separate cases, you no longer have a single highest court. If you only increase the number of judges, wouldn't you increase the trial time via each additional judge asking questions of the litigants?

Term limits is worth debating, especially for Congress as well. Perhaps for senior bureaucrats who are too closely tapped into lobbyists? Prohibition from ever working for a lobby firm once having served elected office in DC?

[boston_e]

If you go back and do some digging, you'll find a lot of bitter maneuvering between Harry Reid and the Republicans. It was Harry Reid who blew up the filibuster for judicial appointments, and McConnell warned Reid at that time he would regret it in the future.

Right, but as previously mentioned in this thread Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made while suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court. So in effect what MConnell wanted to do at the time was to stack the District Court of Appeals... not by adding judges, but by shrinking the size of the court and not replacing more liberal justices.

If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.

[deadheadskier]

You are a fact ignoring partisan hack Moose

Look at the history of the court since 1990 and basically all of them were voted in by a comfortable bipartisan majority until the Garland stunt power grab by Mitch with Thomas being the notable exception due to serious allegations against him.

The history is right there in front of you. And then Mitch went hypocritically further with his power thirst with Barrett.

Your Reid analysis is totally disingenuous considering the facts of the time. Mitch was doing everything in his power to stall or prevent Obama lower court appointments like never had been done before. What did you expect?

To say that the Democrats have been even close to as guilty as the Republicans in trying to control the make up of the courts is a load of crap.

[Dickc]

If you go back and do some digging, you'll find a lot of bitter maneuvering between Harry Reid and the Republicans. It was Harry Reid who blew up the filibuster for judicial appointments, and McConnell warned Reid at that time he would regret it in the future.

Right, but as previously mentioned in this thread Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made while suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court. So in effect what MConnell wanted to do at the time was to stack the District Court of Appeals... not by adding judges, but by shrinking the size of the court and not replacing more liberal justices.

If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.

You both are forgetting that Harry Reid began this whole thing by refusing to bring house passed legislation to the Senate floor for consideration. Reid did not want anything President Obama would veto from having any chance of being passed causing Obama to veto it. About the only move left to McConnell was to stop Judicial nominations from going anywhere in retaliation.

There is a whole lot of blame by both sides in this mess. I'm surprised no one has brought up Robert Bork and what the Democrats did to him.

[easyrider16]

The Senate's role is to advise and consent, not rubber stamp. They may vote down a candidate. They may do it repeatedly.

I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with a single senator causing the entire body to abdicate this duty by failing to hold a vote.

And I disagree that holding the vote would likely have resulted in not confirming Garland. He was eminently qualified and the only reason for voting against him would be partisanship. That alone doesn't typically doom supreme court appointees. Not saying he was guaranteed to be confirmed, but certainly he had a good chance.

I think we need to find ways to remove partisanship from the process of selecting Supreme Court justices. Justice is supposed to be non partisan.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[boston_e]

You both are forgetting that Harry Reid began this whole thing by refusing to bring house passed legislation to the Senate floor for consideration. Reid did not want anything President Obama would veto from having any chance of being passed causing Obama to veto it. About the only move left to McConnell was to stop Judicial nominations from going anywhere in retaliation.

There is a whole lot of blame by both sides in this mess. I'm surprised no one has brought up Robert Bork and what the Democrats did to him.

The Majority leader not brining legislation to the floor that does not have a chance of passing is nothing new.. that happens almost every time the senate and house are controlled by different parties. McConnell is the one who chose to tie that to judicial nominations... part of the reason the Republicans get more than 50% of the blame for the politicization of the courts.

Bork was nowhere near the centrist that Garland was. His nomination also was brought up for a vote and was rejected (not along party lines). 42 "yeas" and 58 "nays" with Democrats and Republicans both voting for and against confirmation. Again, very different from McConnell completely halting the process for 100% political purposes.

[Bubba]

You both are forgetting that Harry Reid began this whole thing by refusing to bring house passed legislation to the Senate floor for consideration. Reid did not want anything President Obama would veto from having any chance of being passed causing Obama to veto it. About the only move left to McConnell was to stop Judicial nominations from going anywhere in retaliation.

There is a whole lot of blame by both sides in this mess. I'm surprised no one has brought up Robert Bork and what the Democrats did to him.

The Majority leader not brining legislation to the floor that does not have a chance of passing is nothing new.. that happens almost every time the senate and house are controlled by different parties. McConnell is the one who chose to tie that to judicial nominations... part of the reason the Republicans get more than 50% of the blame for the politicization of the courts.

Bork was nowhere near the centrist that Garland was. His nomination also was brought up for a vote and was rejected (not along party lines). 42 "yeas" and 58 "nays" with Democrats and Republicans both voting for and against confirmation. Again, very different from McConnell completely halting the process for 100% political purposes.

Opposition to Bork came from two sources. The first, of course, was his being so conservative as to be out of the mainstream of legal thinking at the time. The other was his actions during the “Saturday if the massacre” of the Watergate era, for which he was never forgiven by many.