4 ms·

I'll leave GP to answer the outrage comments, but I think the rest reasonably calls out for perspective. Merrick Garland wasn't just not confirmed, his nominat

by bb611 6y ago

I'll leave GP to answer the outrage comments, but I think the rest reasonably calls out for perspective. Merrick Garland wasn't just not confirmed, his nomination was ignored for 9.5 months. As you point out, it's not uncommon for opposition party senates to turn down supreme court nominees, as is their due. It is, however, extremely rare for them not to hear those nominations at all, and Garland's nomination timeline stands out for its longevity. Out of 163 nominations, only 11 have lapsed (from your wiki link, which lists an incorrect count in the summary). Reverse chronological order of the most recent 5: - Garland (2016): 293 days. Opposition senate. - John Marshall Harlan II (1954): 27 days in lapsed nomination + 49 days for confirmation. Ally senate, confirmed by opposition senate. - Pierce Butler (1922): 14 days lapsed nomination + 16 days for confirmation. Ally senate. - William Hornblower (1893): 45 days lapsed + 41 days to reject confirmation. Ally senate. - Stanley Matthers (1881): 36 days lapsed + 59 days to confirm. Opposition senate, confirmed by split senate. The point being that there is essentially no historical precedent for this behavior, to the point that we need to look 135 years in the past simply to find any example of an opposition senate delaying a candidate's nomination. Even then, Garland is the supreme court nominee with the most time under nomination in US congressional history by a factor of more than 2. > over the history of USA 29 times supreme court judges were nominated in election year This doesn't really do justice to the history here, 1/4 of those nominations happened in a single year due to conflict between President Tyler and the Whig party, and an overlapping 1/4 were withdrawals. The last ~170 years of supreme court nominees have been pretty uninteresting and undramatic. - Garland (2016): lapsed. Ally senate. - Fortas (1968): confirmed. Ally senate. - Thornberry (1968) withdrawn because the seat was no longer available, due to some musical chairs replacing Chief Justice Earl Warren. Ally Senate. - Murphy (1940): confirmed. Ally senate. - Cardozo (1932): confirmed. Ally senate. - Clarke (1916): confirmed. Ally senate. - Brandeis (1916): confirmed. Ally senate. - Pitney (1912): confirmed. Ally senate. - Shiras (1892): confirmed. Ally senate. - Fuller (1888): confimed. Opposition senate. - Woods (1880): confirmed. Opposition senate. - Hunt (1872): confirmed. Ally senate. - Chase (1864): confirmed. Ally senate. - Bradford (1852): lapsed. Opposition senate. - 7 various nominations (1844): none confirmed. Opposition senate. - Crittenden (1828): postponed i.e. rejected. Opposition senate. - Johnson (1804): confirmed. Ally senate. - Ellsworth (1796): confirmed. Washington was president and rejected party politics, but the Federalists were friendly with him, so ally senate. - Chase (1796): confirmed. Ally senate. - Cushing (1796): confirmed. Ally senate. I think there's plenty of evidence that Garland's nomination fight radically rocked the boat in US national politics, and we're likely to see similar boat rocking over the next few years as Democrats are pushed harder to abuse the limits of their power in order to improve their leverage on Republicans.

bleepblorp 6y ago
It's not accurate to imply that upcoming crises over USSC nominations will be the result of a Democratic power grab. More intense fights over control of the USSC will happen because the differential population growth between the states and the rigid allocation of Senate seats means that the USSC is being filled without benefit of the democratic consent of a majority of the American population. The fact that the USSC is being filled with judges who are hostile to the social values and economic interests of the majority compounds the problem. Political strife over USSC nominations is not a partisan problem but rather a function of the fact that the US constitution, by design, allows the reactionary minority to dominate the majority. The constitution gives the reactionary 40% the legal right to rule the majority, but this does not mean the majority is under any obligation to meekly accept this.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  (putting my hard hat on) I am not sure the consent of majority or for the perceived benefit of majority is the right way to go. What if the majority of the class votes that Jenny now must go to all school events wearing nothing but stockings and lingerie?
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    That's an arguable point; indeed it has been argued since at least Plato. No hard hat required as far as I'm concerned. Excessive public representation can cause poor outcomes, (hard hat on) such as the governance problems in California caused by ballot initiatives. Letting the public write policy does not seem to lead to good outcomes in most circumstances. However, representative democracy which combines the requirement that leaders secure consent of the governed with with normalized protections for individual rights seems to be the best system of governance humanity can come up with. Leaders, like employees, tend to do a better job if they can be fired for doing a bad job, and that is what the need for majority democratic consent provides. Protections for individual rights reduces the risk of individuals being harmed by mob rule, such as would be the case in the dress code problem in your post. Indeed, most of the democratic world combines these principles to good effect. The US is an outlier among nominally democratic countries as it is governed without the consent of the majority. Political systems that allow for governance without the consent of the majority allow rulers to act with impunity towards the majority and, as such have a very long history of abusing the majority. The kind of people who rise to the top of such systems tend not to be the kind of altruistic people who will govern in the interests of the public, and without any requirement for democratic consent they absolutely will not govern in the interests of the public. Indifference to majority needs, persecution, or even genocide, often follows. Quite frankly, this is the situation the US has blundered into. Over the past few decades the US has gradually shifted from a polity where broad consent of the governed was essential into a situation where the constitutionally empowered minority (represented by the Republican party) has become increasingly abusive towards majority interests. Under Trump, the minority is now pursuing a platform specifically designed to antagonize--or even persecute--the majority. Fights over USSC nominations are just a part of this. This isn't a good place for a country to be, especially as a large portion of the American ruling minority population is very pleased by the prospect of persecuting the majority.

by bb611 6y ago

bleepblorp 6y ago

It's not accurate to imply that upcoming crises over USSC nominations will be the result of a Democratic power grab. More intense fights over control of the USSC will happen because the differential population growth between the states and the rigid allocation of Senate seats means that the USSC is being filled without benefit of the democratic consent of a majority of the American population. The fact that the USSC is being filled with judges who are hostile to the social values and economic interests of the majority compounds the problem. Political strife over USSC nominations is not a partisan problem but rather a function of the fact that the US constitution, by design, allows the reactionary minority to dominate the majority. The constitution gives the reactionary 40% the legal right to rule the majority, but this does not mean the majority is under any obligation to meekly accept this.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
(putting my hard hat on) I am not sure the consent of majority or for the perceived benefit of majority is the right way to go. What if the majority of the class votes that Jenny now must go to all school events wearing nothing but stockings and lingerie?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  That's an arguable point; indeed it has been argued since at least Plato. No hard hat required as far as I'm concerned. Excessive public representation can cause poor outcomes, (hard hat on) such as the governance problems in California caused by ballot initiatives. Letting the public write policy does not seem to lead to good outcomes in most circumstances. However, representative democracy which combines the requirement that leaders secure consent of the governed with with normalized protections for individual rights seems to be the best system of governance humanity can come up with. Leaders, like employees, tend to do a better job if they can be fired for doing a bad job, and that is what the need for majority democratic consent provides. Protections for individual rights reduces the risk of individuals being harmed by mob rule, such as would be the case in the dress code problem in your post. Indeed, most of the democratic world combines these principles to good effect. The US is an outlier among nominally democratic countries as it is governed without the consent of the majority. Political systems that allow for governance without the consent of the majority allow rulers to act with impunity towards the majority and, as such have a very long history of abusing the majority. The kind of people who rise to the top of such systems tend not to be the kind of altruistic people who will govern in the interests of the public, and without any requirement for democratic consent they absolutely will not govern in the interests of the public. Indifference to majority needs, persecution, or even genocide, often follows. Quite frankly, this is the situation the US has blundered into. Over the past few decades the US has gradually shifted from a polity where broad consent of the governed was essential into a situation where the constitutionally empowered minority (represented by the Republican party) has become increasingly abusive towards majority interests. Under Trump, the minority is now pursuing a platform specifically designed to antagonize--or even persecute--the majority. Fights over USSC nominations are just a part of this. This isn't a good place for a country to be, especially as a large portion of the American ruling minority population is very pleased by the prospect of persecuting the majority.