4 ms·

McConnell blocked the previous president from making his deserved appointment. The current Supreme Court is illegitimate, courtesy of the Senate.

ctlby 7y ago
Can you point to the law McConnell violated in doing this? And if not, in what sense is the current court illegitimate? Finally, how does this in any way address my question about the president "seizing" power?
- jadell 7y ago
  It's the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent the President's SCOTUS nominations. What is the procedure when they abdicate that responsibility? Remember, the Senate didn't tell Obama "no, we don't like your nominee." They, meaning McConnell, refused to hold any hearings on at all. So maybe he didn't violate the law, but he certainly didn't uphold his Constitutional responsibilities, which I believe is part of the Oath of Office he took.
  - ctlby 7y ago
    Not sure why you were downvoted. This is the best answer I've ever received to my question.
  - showdeadplease 7y ago
    The Senate is not required to hold hearings on nominees. The Senate did not hold any hearings until 1916.
    - jadell 7y ago
      That is a distinction without a difference in this context, which is about the Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibilities. They didn't hold public hearings before 1916, that is true (the history of why they even started holding public hearings is pretty controversial in itself.) However, they still held yay/nay votes on the floor for the nominees, in order to fulfill their advise and consent role. McConnell refused to hold a vote, therefore he failed in upholding the Senate's constitutional role on the SCOTUS confirmation process.
      - showdeadplease 7y ago
        That's not how the Senate works. They are not required to hold a vote in order to declare "nay" on a nominee. Declining to vote is effectively a "nay". It's no different than declining to hold a vote on a bill which they know will not pass. This is how Congress and the co-equal branches of government are designed to work. Congress and the President often don't get along. It's a feature, not a bug.
mrkstu 7y ago
Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the Senate, that is a bit of a non-sequitur. McConnell took a gamble that paid off for his party- if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. In the end it was actually a very prominent campaign issue and therefore was directly a choice before the voters, which in my mind would make it more legitimate in a 'democratic' context than the usual.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  I disagree. Obama received more votes than Donald Trump ever will. The voters already made a choice in 2012. Forcing reaffirmation for Democratic appointees, but not Republican ones, is a clear attempt to obstruct the power of the President.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  I do not base my evaluation of legitimacy on the Constitution, but on the voice of the people.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  > Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the senate.... > [...] if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. Under your logic, they could have just waited for a Republican to become president before they voted to confirm any judges. Granted, that would have been an even bigger gamble (what if they lose the majority in the Senate in the meantime?), and even more justices could die or retire in the meantime. How many seats need to be open before you would say the Senate must confirm someone? (1? 2? 5? 9?) How long are they allowed to wait? (6 months? a year? 4 years? 8 years?) . How dysfunctional could our government become before your logic implies the need to act?

ctlby 7y ago

Can you point to the law McConnell violated in doing this? And if not, in what sense is the current court illegitimate? Finally, how does this in any way address my question about the president "seizing" power?

jadell 7y ago
It's the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent the President's SCOTUS nominations. What is the procedure when they abdicate that responsibility? Remember, the Senate didn't tell Obama "no, we don't like your nominee." They, meaning McConnell, refused to hold any hearings on at all. So maybe he didn't violate the law, but he certainly didn't uphold his Constitutional responsibilities, which I believe is part of the Oath of Office he took.
- ctlby 7y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted. This is the best answer I've ever received to my question.
- showdeadplease 7y ago
  The Senate is not required to hold hearings on nominees. The Senate did not hold any hearings until 1916.
  - jadell 7y ago
    That is a distinction without a difference in this context, which is about the Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibilities. They didn't hold public hearings before 1916, that is true (the history of why they even started holding public hearings is pretty controversial in itself.) However, they still held yay/nay votes on the floor for the nominees, in order to fulfill their advise and consent role. McConnell refused to hold a vote, therefore he failed in upholding the Senate's constitutional role on the SCOTUS confirmation process.
    - showdeadplease 7y ago
      That's not how the Senate works. They are not required to hold a vote in order to declare "nay" on a nominee. Declining to vote is effectively a "nay". It's no different than declining to hold a vote on a bill which they know will not pass. This is how Congress and the co-equal branches of government are designed to work. Congress and the President often don't get along. It's a feature, not a bug.

mrkstu 7y ago

Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the Senate, that is a bit of a non-sequitur. McConnell took a gamble that paid off for his party- if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. In the end it was actually a very prominent campaign issue and therefore was directly a choice before the voters, which in my mind would make it more legitimate in a 'democratic' context than the usual.

CameronNemo 7y ago
I disagree. Obama received more votes than Donald Trump ever will. The voters already made a choice in 2012. Forcing reaffirmation for Democratic appointees, but not Republican ones, is a clear attempt to obstruct the power of the President.
CameronNemo 7y ago
I do not base my evaluation of legitimacy on the Constitution, but on the voice of the people.
pmiller2 7y ago
> Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the senate.... > [...] if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. Under your logic, they could have just waited for a Republican to become president before they voted to confirm any judges. Granted, that would have been an even bigger gamble (what if they lose the majority in the Senate in the meantime?), and even more justices could die or retire in the meantime. How many seats need to be open before you would say the Senate must confirm someone? (1? 2? 5? 9?) How long are they allowed to wait? (6 months? a year? 4 years? 8 years?) . How dysfunctional could our government become before your logic implies the need to act?