5 ms·

Ultimately, a President with a friendly Senate will always fill the seat. An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. Any rhetoric around that

Ultimately, a President with a friendly Senate will always fill the seat. An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. Any rhetoric around that is pretty much just noise. They will send someone through as they've published a couple of lists and have been filling the lower courts pretty quickly. It is not like people weren't aware Justice Ginsburg was very sick. Frankly, given the President, I would bet it will occur within the next week or two. I do wonder what the polling will be like on this issue. I can actually see a couple of scenarios where Democrats would want to run on a filled seat.

coredog64 6y ago
Early noise on Twitter is that Biden’s response to a filled seat is an expansion of the court to 11 seats. Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.
- ngcazz 6y ago
  Sure. It’s just not very likely Biden will win, since Trump is a better campaigner with the EC arithmetic tilted in his favor.
- glenstein 6y ago
  It would be a proportionate and appropriate response, and hopefully restore an equilibrium in response to a constitutional crisis provoked by McConnell.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    It would be a disaster and escalate beyond reason. What one side does, the other side will do harder.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      The Republicans already take everything to 11, as a matter of stated policy, since 2008, regardless of whether the Democrats go to 10. Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.
      - AuryGlenz 6y ago
        If that were true they had plenty of time to pack the court themselves, but they haven’t.
        glenstein 6y ago
        It is correct to say that they have had plenty of time to provoke a constitutional crisis. It is also correct to note that they could have resorted to abusive procedure even worse than the one they already did. Which is like saying they created a category four hurricane instead of a category five.
    - glenstein 6y ago
      Far from a disaster, it will be something approaching mandatory to restore faith in the institution. The disaster already came. But because this response would come in the future and the disaster happened in the past, some people have the psychological reaction of thinking that a new thing is unacceptable while uncritically accepting bad things that have already happened, which is called shifting baseline syndrome.
giantrobot 6y ago
> An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. The Senate didn't delay the heck out of anything. McDonnell flat out refused to do anything about Garland's nomination. He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate majority leader should not be able to shut down the Senate and prevent it from performing its Constitutionally mandated tasks. If the Senate didn't want to confirm Garland they should have held all the appropriate hearings and held an approval vote. If it's the Senate's will that Garland not be approved that's fine. It was singularly McConnell's will that Garland not be approved so he just never allowed hearings. No matter your political leanings that should be seen as abhorrent if you profess to want law and order.
- protomyth 6y ago
  You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. Wow, being a bit insulting there. I am stating how it works. The Senate Majority leader can do it. That's how it works. Supposed to doesn't really matter when talking about what will happen.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  > He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. Ultimately a legislator's job isn't to respect precedence or case law. It's to create new law (and presumably precedent). I don't think your point is unfounded, I just think arguing for a legislator to behave like a judge takes away from that point (unless you have a good argument why they should, but I think including that argument would be good at that point).

coredog64 6y ago

Early noise on Twitter is that Biden’s response to a filled seat is an expansion of the court to 11 seats. Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.

ngcazz 6y ago
Sure. It’s just not very likely Biden will win, since Trump is a better campaigner with the EC arithmetic tilted in his favor.
glenstein 6y ago
It would be a proportionate and appropriate response, and hopefully restore an equilibrium in response to a constitutional crisis provoked by McConnell.
- protomyth 6y ago
  It would be a disaster and escalate beyond reason. What one side does, the other side will do harder.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    The Republicans already take everything to 11, as a matter of stated policy, since 2008, regardless of whether the Democrats go to 10. Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.
    - AuryGlenz 6y ago
      If that were true they had plenty of time to pack the court themselves, but they haven’t.
      - glenstein 6y ago
        It is correct to say that they have had plenty of time to provoke a constitutional crisis. It is also correct to note that they could have resorted to abusive procedure even worse than the one they already did. Which is like saying they created a category four hurricane instead of a category five.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    Far from a disaster, it will be something approaching mandatory to restore faith in the institution. The disaster already came. But because this response would come in the future and the disaster happened in the past, some people have the psychological reaction of thinking that a new thing is unacceptable while uncritically accepting bad things that have already happened, which is called shifting baseline syndrome.

giantrobot 6y ago

> An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. The Senate didn't delay the heck out of anything. McDonnell flat out refused to do anything about Garland's nomination. He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate majority leader should not be able to shut down the Senate and prevent it from performing its Constitutionally mandated tasks. If the Senate didn't want to confirm Garland they should have held all the appropriate hearings and held an approval vote. If it's the Senate's will that Garland not be approved that's fine. It was singularly McConnell's will that Garland not be approved so he just never allowed hearings. No matter your political leanings that should be seen as abhorrent if you profess to want law and order.

protomyth 6y ago
You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. Wow, being a bit insulting there. I am stating how it works. The Senate Majority leader can do it. That's how it works. Supposed to doesn't really matter when talking about what will happen.
ByteJockey 6y ago
> He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. Ultimately a legislator's job isn't to respect precedence or case law. It's to create new law (and presumably precedent). I don't think your point is unfounded, I just think arguing for a legislator to behave like a judge takes away from that point (unless you have a good argument why they should, but I think including that argument would be good at that point).