[…] See also JeffFecke at Shakesville and Down With Tyranny. Update: See also Dr. Steven Taylor, one of the few honest small-government conservatives left in America: […]
Steven, whatever are you thinking? You’ve thrown perfectly rational, sane water (if a bit frigid) all over John Hindraker’s bit of blustery burble, and just made a terrible mess!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 12:55 pm
I can’t believe it. Someone just compared Steven to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. LOL.
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.
It seems you may want to add bluster to your own CV as well based on this post. It’s pretty clear that Hinderaker is engaging in hyperbole, especially since it he closes the relatively short post with this -
“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 2024. 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.
I answered the question his post title asked. If that is bluster, then I suppose I am guilty.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 7:44 pm
You are of course right that this is nothing like a coup and what Schumer is talking about is to the letter of the constitution. That being said, what Schumer is advocating — the essential refusal to consent to *anybody* Bush appoints, presumably in an effort to wait out the clock until there’s a Democrat in office in 2024, runs against the spirit of the Constitution. It’s also setting an unsettling precedent wherein we could have 1 or 2 (or more) vacancies for long stretches until the Senate and White House belong to the same party. It doesn’t take someone that believes the The Almighty Imperial Power of the Presidency to be seriously disturbed by this if it comes to pass, even if Hinderaker is blowing it far out of proportion.
You are, of course, taking the scenario even further: the notion of 1 or 2 long-term vacancies. This is rather unlikely, to put it mildly.
In regards to Schumer, Bush and 2024–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?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, July 29, 2024 @ 10:14 am
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.
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.
Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices and a number of lower court judges who are openly hostile to the Constitution, as are many of his other appointees in government. Of course his nominees should be blocked - that’s been true since the day he was inaugurated.
Comment by Avedon — Tuesday, July 31, 2024 @ 5:04 pm
[…] See also JeffFecke at Shakesville and Down With Tyranny. Update: See also Dr. Steven Taylor, one of the few honest small-government conservatives left in America: […]
Pingback by The Mahablog » Saturday Cartoons — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 12:16 pm
Steven, whatever are you thinking? You’ve thrown perfectly rational, sane water (if a bit frigid) all over John Hindraker’s bit of blustery burble, and just made a terrible mess!
(Very well said!)
Comment by Polimom — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 12:47 pm
Gracias and
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 12:55 pm
I can’t believe it. Someone just compared Steven to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. LOL.
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
Comment by The Florida Masochist — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 3:00 pm
It seems you may want to add bluster to your own CV as well based on this post. It’s pretty clear that Hinderaker is engaging in hyperbole, especially since it he closes the relatively short post with this -
“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 2024. 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.
Comment by ts — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 6:50 pm
I answered the question his post title asked. If that is bluster, then I suppose I am guilty.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, July 28, 2024 @ 7:44 pm
You are of course right that this is nothing like a coup and what Schumer is talking about is to the letter of the constitution. That being said, what Schumer is advocating — the essential refusal to consent to *anybody* Bush appoints, presumably in an effort to wait out the clock until there’s a Democrat in office in 2024, runs against the spirit of the Constitution. It’s also setting an unsettling precedent wherein we could have 1 or 2 (or more) vacancies for long stretches until the Senate and White House belong to the same party. It doesn’t take someone that believes the The Almighty Imperial Power of the Presidency to be seriously disturbed by this if it comes to pass, even if Hinderaker is blowing it far out of proportion.
Comment by R. Alex — Sunday, July 29, 2024 @ 2:21 am
You are, of course, taking the scenario even further: the notion of 1 or 2 long-term vacancies. This is rather unlikely, to put it mildly.
In regards to Schumer, Bush and 2024–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?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, July 29, 2024 @ 10:14 am
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.
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.
Comment by R. Alex — Monday, July 30, 2024 @ 9:10 am
Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices and a number of lower court judges who are openly hostile to the Constitution, as are many of his other appointees in government. Of course his nominees should be blocked - that’s been true since the day he was inaugurated.
Comment by Avedon — Tuesday, July 31, 2024 @ 5:04 pm