6 ms·

Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Sena

Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Senate, why should they ever hold hearings for a single Republican judicial appointment, let alone confirm one? Should judicial appointments just sit vacant until president and Senate are from the same party? I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" language from the Constitution for the Senate to simply stonewall a nomination process until they get the President they want.

redler 6y ago
As Republican Senator Richard Burr said in 2016, after Scalia died, "...And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tempestn 6y ago
You're right. Unfortunately this is a natural result of having so many different veto points in this process and in the US governmental system in general. I was just thinking today about why Canada's Supreme Court isn't remotely politicized in the same way as the US. Part of it may be that we're just not as partisan, but I think the main thing is that with our parliamentary system, if the party in power has a majority—which they do the majority of the time—they can basically pass what laws they want. Of course, they generally refrain from doing deeply unpopular things since they'll pay for it at the next election, although even that does happen: eg. the Mulroney (conservative!) government implementing a 7% goods and services tax. Probably played a large part of them being out of power for a decade+ immediately following, but was great for the country fiscally from there forward. Anyway, since the government can largely do what they want, there's much less need or reason to essentially try to enact 'legislation from the bench'. I couldn't even tell you the political leanings of our SC justices. There are still plenty of downsides to this system of course (lack of proportional representation comes to mind), but it does appear to be more functional in a lot of ways than the US. And probably not by accident—the Canadian system was developed almost a hundred years after the US, and had it and other more recent governments as models; it was also soon after the US Civil War, which played a part in Canada adopting a strong federal system with less provincial power, relatively speaking. Of course, it's easy to say all that. Much harder to actually enact significant reform!
zaroth 6y ago
At first I read your comment as “What keeps this principle from extending to a President’s entire team” and I recalled that Trump’s cabinet appointments were notoriously slow to get through the Senate, held up even by a Democratic minority.

redler 6y ago

As Republican Senator Richard Burr said in 2016, after Scalia died, "...And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tempestn 6y ago

You're right. Unfortunately this is a natural result of having so many different veto points in this process and in the US governmental system in general. I was just thinking today about why Canada's Supreme Court isn't remotely politicized in the same way as the US. Part of it may be that we're just not as partisan, but I think the main thing is that with our parliamentary system, if the party in power has a majority—which they do the majority of the time—they can basically pass what laws they want. Of course, they generally refrain from doing deeply unpopular things since they'll pay for it at the next election, although even that does happen: eg. the Mulroney (conservative!) government implementing a 7% goods and services tax. Probably played a large part of them being out of power for a decade+ immediately following, but was great for the country fiscally from there forward. Anyway, since the government can largely do what they want, there's much less need or reason to essentially try to enact 'legislation from the bench'. I couldn't even tell you the political leanings of our SC justices. There are still plenty of downsides to this system of course (lack of proportional representation comes to mind), but it does appear to be more functional in a lot of ways than the US. And probably not by accident—the Canadian system was developed almost a hundred years after the US, and had it and other more recent governments as models; it was also soon after the US Civil War, which played a part in Canada adopting a strong federal system with less provincial power, relatively speaking. Of course, it's easy to say all that. Much harder to actually enact significant reform!

zaroth 6y ago

At first I read your comment as “What keeps this principle from extending to a President’s entire team” and I recalled that Trump’s cabinet appointments were notoriously slow to get through the Senate, held up even by a Democratic minority.