I guess you haven’t heard.
The GOP didn’t want a fitting successor to Thurgood Marshall.
They wanted an Uncle Tom who would do their bidding—and that is just what they got.
1 Like
You beat me too it: totally presidential material there. Hey Lindsay, Groundhog Day was yesterday.
It doesn’t get down to warfare more than SCOTUS appointments, but I still think this is a McConnell distraction. That being said, I say, go ahead and do it. I dare you. If just to taunt the three warmongers – Ayotte, McCain and Graham. Be careful when playing with fire, Mitchy.
It is a worthy bet that it won’t help McConnell and the idealists get what they want. At this point, the more outrage the better. No matter where it is coming from.
A inadvertent concession that they passed the biggest GOP tool ever to sit on the SCOTUS bench.
1 Like
There has been regular use of filibusters and blockages that amount to the same thing (e.g., bottling up in committee) for decades now in respect to lower court judges. However, there was no serious attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court justice. I just don’t see forty votes there to block a judicial nominee of that magnitude, in part since if some justice had to resign, I truly doubt Obama will put in someone controversial. I realize that Kagan and Sotomayor (over 15 years a federal judge, originally appointed by Bush41) wasn’t really controversial either, but Republicans didn’t FILIBUSTER them either.
If Obama’s pick is so bad that forty Republican senators don’t like him or her, they would have various ways to use the legislative tools they have now to make things real difficult for him. A ‘work to rule’ policy could easily be imagined where things would go to a standstill. The same might be imagined if a Republican wins in '16 in respect to Democrats.
Anyway, ending the filibuster here is a good idea. There are enough bottlenecks as is, even in the nomination process. But, I’m unsure - unless it influences the filibuster in other areas (it might) – how much it matters really.
So, the Turtle is signaling that a) he believes the Republicans will win the White House in 2016, and b) that they will nominate the most odious Supreme Court Justice replacements they can find.
The gamble McConnell and Alexander want to take is so fascinating to me. The 2016 map looks pretty damn good for Democrats, particularly with a GOP field that looks increasingly weaker than even 2012’s. Were this 50 vote rule to pass it’s likely Democrats would reap the rewards and would be able to flip SCOTUS within the next six years. Democrats, on the other hand, are very wise to oppose it for now, yet let the debate continue and actively engage in it when it’s brought up again. If a GOPer is somehow elected president in 2016, Democrats can loudly protest any attempts to change the filibuster rule. If Democrats hold the presidency and win back the Senate, they can use McConnell’s arguments to implement their own changes. It’s a win-win.
Well – I could see that the Supreme Court would be different because it is a lifetime appointment. Appointments to the Supreme Court – and really, to the entirety of the federal bench – should be consensus appointments, agreeable to large numbers of Senators of both major parties. And on that score, I think there is an argument for a supermajority requirement for confirmation.
The problem is that Republicans have grossly abused the filibuster to block even non-controversial nominations in order to achieve other ends, not for the Supreme Court, perhaps, but in other executive positions, as well as the rest of the federal judiciary, and the implied threat of the same thing for Supreme Court has almost certainly made Democratic nominees a bit more conservative than they otherwise would have been. Republicans, OTOH, have had no problem nominating extreme conservatives at all levels of the federal judiciary, counting on Democrats eventually to cave in and allow them through.
My fear, though, is that making majority vote for all federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court, a hard and fast rule will only encourage Republicans to nominate even more extremist judges. Though Democrats are reluctant to filibuster, there have been occasions where they have at least been able to force less extreme nominees. The filibuster is not much of a brake, but it is at least something of one.
2 Likes
It’s not sloppy history, Thomas Jefferson DID write the Senate rules. Adams may have been the first VP to preside over the Senate, but he was evidently not moved to codify its procedural rules. Jefferson was. And he did.
1 Like
Thank you – I thought I remembered that, but I hadn’t had a chance to look it up.
Cloture doesn’t require a 2/3 vote, either. It requires a 3/5 vote (which is less than 2/3, if you don’t want to do the math).
The Constitution itself requires 2/3 votes for some things – Constitutional amendments, for one, and conviction for impeachment for another. Things that really should be decided by consensus rather than simple majority.
It would be ridiculous to require a 2/3 vote on legislation. But I think lifetime judicial appointments could be argued to be one of those things that should require some degree of consensus. It’s an imperfect tool, but I don’t know what better way there is to try to stop extremist lifetime appointments. The real problem with the filibuster is that it is so easy to misuse. I would prefer that the burden be on the party filbustering to muster a 2/5 vote to maintain it rather than the majority party to muster a 3/5 vote to terminate it.
1 Like
The Senate Democrats (Republican Light) are all for this because then they don’t need to pick straws to see who will fall on their swords to vote with the Republicans, like how a dozen of them had to fall on their swords to get the veto proof Keystone Pipeline bill passed.