3 ms·

I thought the same about Merrick Garland’s “process”. Everyone’s realizing the rules are just social conventions and everyone thinks their side is justified in

I thought the same about Merrick Garland’s “process”. Everyone’s realizing the rules are just social conventions and everyone thinks their side is justified in breaking them this one time.

tptacek 8y ago
People say this all the time about Garland, but I'm as Democrat as anyone on this board (as the FEC site will ruefully attest this cycle) and I just kind of don't care. The Garland thing was by-the-book. The Republicans held the Senate. Obama couldn't get the votes to appoint. It's not like the Constitution is fuzzy about what happens when that happens. Blocking all Supreme Court nominations was just good tactics. It is certainly one among many decisive factors that won the GOP the White House.
- tzs 8y ago
  Was it by the book? The Constitution says that the President nominates and by and with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate appoints Justices. Is refusing to even consider a nominee providing "Advice and Consent"? They could have blocked all Supreme Court nominations while at least maintaining the appearance of doing their job by holding hearings, bringing them to a vote, and defeating them on the floor.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Why wouldn't it be? Has the meaning of "consent" changed since the time of the framers? Obama proposes a nominee, the Senate majority refuses consent. Lather and repeat. Would that not have been foreseeable to Madison and Adams? The whole "hearings" thing just seems like theater. Nobody on either political pole had any misconception about what was happening.
    - dctoedt 8y ago
      My guess is that if McConnell and Grassley had allowed hearings and a vote, Garland likely would have been confirmed, because there likely are enough GOP senators who didn't oppose Garland but didn't want to cross McConnell. The Constitution doesn't say that the majority leader gets a blank check in deciding how the advise-and-consent process works — in effect, McConnell and Grassley disenfranchised up to 98 other senators and stopped the Senate from performing its constitutional duty. I'd love to see both of them expelled from the Senate for what they did, but I'm under no illusion that the required 2/3 votes would ever be there in their lifetimes.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about the fact that the Senate gets to make up their own rules? Wouldn't problems with how McConnell runs his majority be non-justiciable political questions? If other senators object, they can oust McConnell.
        dctoedt 8y ago
        > Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about the fact that the Senate gets to make up their own rules? Yes. > Wouldn't problems with how McConnell runs his majority be non-justiciable political questions? Yes. > If other senators object, they can oust McConnell. Yes — but they're very aware of the power that they've given the majority leader under the Senate's rules, and they're very cognizant of Emerson's dictum: When you strike at a king, you must kill him. [0] That's why I said there'd never be the constitutionally-required 2/3 vote to expel McConnell and Grassley. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/385864-when-you-strike-at-a-king-you-must-kill-him https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/385864-when-you-strike-at-a...
        tptacek 8y ago
        Right, I'm just pushing back on the idea that there's anything unconstitutional about McConnell's nomination strategy. (I also think the Senate majority is very happy about the strategy; it clearly worked!)

I thought the same about Merrick Garland’s “process”. Everyone’s realizing the rules are just social conventions and everyone thinks their side is justified in breaking them this one time.

tptacek 8y ago

People say this all the time about Garland, but I'm as Democrat as anyone on this board (as the FEC site will ruefully attest this cycle) and I just kind of don't care. The Garland thing was by-the-book. The Republicans held the Senate. Obama couldn't get the votes to appoint. It's not like the Constitution is fuzzy about what happens when that happens. Blocking all Supreme Court nominations was just good tactics. It is certainly one among many decisive factors that won the GOP the White House.

tzs 8y ago
Was it by the book? The Constitution says that the President nominates and by and with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate appoints Justices. Is refusing to even consider a nominee providing "Advice and Consent"? They could have blocked all Supreme Court nominations while at least maintaining the appearance of doing their job by holding hearings, bringing them to a vote, and defeating them on the floor.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Why wouldn't it be? Has the meaning of "consent" changed since the time of the framers? Obama proposes a nominee, the Senate majority refuses consent. Lather and repeat. Would that not have been foreseeable to Madison and Adams? The whole "hearings" thing just seems like theater. Nobody on either political pole had any misconception about what was happening.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    My guess is that if McConnell and Grassley had allowed hearings and a vote, Garland likely would have been confirmed, because there likely are enough GOP senators who didn't oppose Garland but didn't want to cross McConnell. The Constitution doesn't say that the majority leader gets a blank check in deciding how the advise-and-consent process works — in effect, McConnell and Grassley disenfranchised up to 98 other senators and stopped the Senate from performing its constitutional duty. I'd love to see both of them expelled from the Senate for what they did, but I'm under no illusion that the required 2/3 votes would ever be there in their lifetimes.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about the fact that the Senate gets to make up their own rules? Wouldn't problems with how McConnell runs his majority be non-justiciable political questions? If other senators object, they can oust McConnell.
      - dctoedt 8y ago
        > Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about the fact that the Senate gets to make up their own rules? Yes. > Wouldn't problems with how McConnell runs his majority be non-justiciable political questions? Yes. > If other senators object, they can oust McConnell. Yes — but they're very aware of the power that they've given the majority leader under the Senate's rules, and they're very cognizant of Emerson's dictum: When you strike at a king, you must kill him. [0] That's why I said there'd never be the constitutionally-required 2/3 vote to expel McConnell and Grassley. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/385864-when-you-strike-at-a-king-you-must-kill-him https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/385864-when-you-strike-at-a...
        tptacek 8y ago
        Right, I'm just pushing back on the idea that there's anything unconstitutional about McConnell's nomination strategy. (I also think the Senate majority is very happy about the strategy; it clearly worked!)