To the extent that they were doing so as transparently as Schumer suggests, that would be equally worthy of condemnation.
The problem with these confirmation fights is that it’s breaking the system. The Republican procedural blocking of Clinton nominees in his presidency (though at least they pretended to have other reasons) begat the Democratic procedural blocking of nominees in GWB’s presidency. Eventually I wonder if we’re just going to reach the point where every appointment will be a recess appointment. I don’t buy the notion that “this situation will not likely rear its situation again.” It won’t have to. It’ll just have to be comparable enough for the Senate leaders to make the case. The pretext becomes flimsier and flimsier until it becomes Senate tradition.
And of course Hinderaker would be cheering on Republicans doing the same thing. Partisan Democrats would be crying bloody murder. That’s all beside the point. The point is that in one case or the other, as their position on the issue flips, they’re going to be right at least half the time (on the basic position, though certainly not the hyperbole) just like they’re right half the time when it comes to denying nominees an up-or-down, full-senate vote. The whole “if-the-situation-were-reversed” is, in my mind, a ducking of the issue.
What’s frustrating to me is that just when I think that the system can’t get any more broken, someone comes along and suggests a way to make it just that.
]]>In regards to Schumer, Bush and 2025–the degree to which the Democrats could run out the clock would very much, in practical terms, depend on when the vacancy occurred and how much of a fight the various sides wanted to have.
Certainly confirmation hearings for a a 3rd Bush appointee would be brutal and I suspect that if Bush didn’t appoint someone whom the Democrats could accept that the President would find himself stymied. That is a result of a confluence of a number of factors, not the least of which being a President with a 25% approval rating and less than a year and half in office.
Quite frankly, if the situation was reversed: a Democratic President in the end of a second term with poor public approval who was considered a wreck by the GOP and who had already filled 2 SCOTUS seats that a GOP controlled Senate would likely try to run out the clock until a Rep was in the WH if it was at all possible.
Indeed, I have no doubt that under such a scenario that Hinderaker would cheering the GOP on to run out said clock.
Do you have any doubt that I am right about that?
]]>“Should a Supreme Court justice die or retire, and should Senate Democrats reject a series of highly-qualified Bush nominees, the Democrats will no doubt pay a price in 2025. So, as they say: bring it on!”
That doesn’t really sound like someone who is seriously proposing that a collapse of the Constitution is imminent.
]]>John doesn’t know what a coup attempt is, but I do. I was stationed in the Philippines during one attempted over throw of Corazon Aquino in 1987 and was flying to the Philippines at the time of the December 1989 attempted overthrow of Aquino. The second was pretty scary, my wife of six months was in Manila at the time and staying with relatives who didn’t have a phone.
Hindraker needs a reality check. Like having his family in a city where people can get killed while innocently walking the down street. That while he is forced to eat salisbury steak for lunch and dinner for two days straight. That will teach him what a coup is. Been there done that.
Bill
]]>
]]>(Very well said!)
]]>