3 ms·

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 senato

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!)

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!)