2 ms·

Yes, stolen — McConnell's refusal to put the matter to a vote, in the hope of holding out for a GOP president, was a gross subversion of the implicit constitut

Yes, stolen — McConnell's refusal to put the matter to a vote, in the hope of holding out for a GOP president, was a gross subversion of the implicit constitutional norm that when a president officially nominates someone, it's the Senate's duty to render an up-or-down vote. That was one of the many, many reasons I finally left the GOP this year after being a Republican since age 9 (I got in trouble for putting a Goldwater sticker on my parents' car).

tptacek 8y ago
What's the difference between a "down" vote and a refusal to let it out of committee? Doesn't this just mirror the cloture drama from a few years back? Also: again, aren't Senate rules delegated specifically to the Senate in the Constitution, and subject to no external oversight? It seems pretty clear that the Senate has the authority to blockade nominations. By contrast, the Constitution is clear about duties and timelines elsewhere (for instance, bill vetoes). There's lots of good reasons to leave the GOP! I'm glad you did! I just don't see this as one of them.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  Blocking an up-or-down confirmation vote strips away the only actual oversight we have under the Constitution, namely the prospect of uncomfortable publicizing of a senator's voting record during his or her next reelection bid — or when s/he runs for president. (I read once that whenever any senator looks in the mirror, s/he sees a future president.)
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Is this really a materially relevant argument? Does anyone have any illusions on where any of the 2016 GOP Senators stood on Garland? They all effectively cast a "no" vote. There's nobody in the country who thinks otherwise. Even The Daily Caller wouldn't put that argument forward. So what's the harm to the Constitution? Bills have been not-getting-out-of-committee for a very long time prior to the McConnell blockade, and you can easily make an argument that killing things in committee is actually more harmful to transparency than what McConnell did --- whatever else you might say about the blockade, it was pretty transparent!

tptacek 8y ago

What's the difference between a "down" vote and a refusal to let it out of committee? Doesn't this just mirror the cloture drama from a few years back? Also: again, aren't Senate rules delegated specifically to the Senate in the Constitution, and subject to no external oversight? It seems pretty clear that the Senate has the authority to blockade nominations. By contrast, the Constitution is clear about duties and timelines elsewhere (for instance, bill vetoes). There's lots of good reasons to leave the GOP! I'm glad you did! I just don't see this as one of them.

dctoedt 8y ago
Blocking an up-or-down confirmation vote strips away the only actual oversight we have under the Constitution, namely the prospect of uncomfortable publicizing of a senator's voting record during his or her next reelection bid — or when s/he runs for president. (I read once that whenever any senator looks in the mirror, s/he sees a future president.)
- tptacek 8y ago
  Is this really a materially relevant argument? Does anyone have any illusions on where any of the 2016 GOP Senators stood on Garland? They all effectively cast a "no" vote. There's nobody in the country who thinks otherwise. Even The Daily Caller wouldn't put that argument forward. So what's the harm to the Constitution? Bills have been not-getting-out-of-committee for a very long time prior to the McConnell blockade, and you can easily make an argument that killing things in committee is actually more harmful to transparency than what McConnell did --- whatever else you might say about the blockade, it was pretty transparent!