Republicans really don’t seem to understand overreach or the political environment. Voters are angry right now because they believe government is broken. They want Congress to make it work again and they want the members to do their jobs. Failing to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee shows an unwillingness to perform their duties while handicapping another branch of government.
In announcing that they won’t even consider a Supreme Court nominee until the election of a new president, the Senate leadership could do more to unify Democrats than anything else. They make the presidential election about something much bigger than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. For Sanders supporters who have rejected voting for Hillary Clinton, they now have something else to vote for and something bigger to vote against. It brings control of the Supreme Court from the theoretical to stark reality.
The GOP might be cheered on by their right wing base, but they won’t win any fans among frustrated independent voters. Obama is relatively popular with approval ratings close to 50%. Congress has an approval rating of 16%. For middle of the road voters, failure to hold hearings on a nominee would show that Republicans either can’t or won’t govern. They’ve extended gridlock from the Congress to the Supreme Court.
And for African-Americans, it makes the election about Obama one more time. Denying the president his constitutional authority to appoint Scalia’s successor reminds African-Americans of the accusations that his presidency is somehow not legitimate. They will go to the polls in 2016 with the urgency to protect his legacy and rebuke the GOP’s insult to the first African-American president.
In the midst of a contentious presidential election, Republicans are going to overreach in attempt to control the Supreme Court. Their efforts will do more to unify Democratic partisans than anything either candidate could do. Their attempt to insult the first African-American president gives Black voters another reason to go to the polls in droves. And, for swing voters, the GOP’s willingness to handicap the Supreme Court shows their inability to govern as a responsible party.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Exactly what happened in the final two years of the last Bush administration when Democrats controlled the Senate.
Your statement is incorrect.
“The Senate began a month-long recess on August 7, having confirmed five judges in 2015 compared to 26 at this point in President Bush’s seventh year in office and 11 in President Clinton’s. ”
You can find the full stats in the Brooking Institute article by:
Russell Wheeler | August 18, 2015 8:00am
“Confirming Federal Judges During Final Two Years of Obama Administration: Vacancies Up, Nominees Down.”
Also includes details of district courts and appeals court records. GOOGLE it and learn. Nothing has changed significantly since August of last year. Most judicial appointees for the lower courts have not moved.
However, one of the cases that would stand is the Texas appeal to keep their terrible legislation requiring all kinds of new conditions for abortion clinics, which to thousands of Texas women means no access to a legal right. I think there is also a voting rights case that would stand, and is generally regarded as one of the various attempts to limit voting. Sorry, but I don’t recall all the details.
A 4-4 SCOTUS decision would also uphold, at least for a time, the Fifth Circuit ‘s decision invalidating Obama’s executive orders on illegal immigrants. And while the EPA will probably win in the D.C.Circuit on its CO2 regulations, the SOCTUS has issued a stay until all appeals in that case are concluded. So it will take more that a 4-4 split to lift the stay against the EPA’s climate change regs.
So, Thomas, I take it it’s only a bad thing when Republicans sabotage a Supreme Court nominee…bork, bork,bork.
The Bork fight was quite a bit different from this situation. There were real concerns about Bork, not just from Democrats, but also jurists who were at least uneasy about him. This is a situation in which the Senate leadership (and every GOP candidate for president, I think) has announced that they will not even consider a nominee. Their logic is that a president in his last year should not have the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, even though history clearly shows over and over again that it has been done by presidents of both parties. They have a constitutional responsibility which they are simply refusing to carry out. As a country, we happen to need 9 people on the Court, so decisions can be made about cases on the docket. It is about us, the citizens of this country. They fail us.
And for the record, since when is any seat on the Supreme Court allocated to a particular viewpoint? This was not always the case, and in this instance a viewpoint, one that is being carried much too far.
He got a hearing and six Republicans voted against his confirmation.
And once again it appears that demanding that judicial nominees get “an up or down vote” only applies when they are nominated by Republican presidents.
Sorry, Dale. Bork was an unqualified extremist.
And, Randy, he was nominated, had a hearing, and was voted on and rejected. The Bork case isn’t remotely close to what the GOP is trying to do with congressional and constitutional processes now…..
It’s critically important that the Democratic party not try to overcome the will of the people at this critical stage. Let the people have their say, and transition as quickly toward putting together the ethically binding platform package that will deliver the presidency and the Senate, If the turnout and enthusiasm of the millennials is valued and nurtured, the House is NOT out of reach.
Scalia and his devotees are “originalists” and proclaim their devotion to the Constitution. Yet they insist that the President not appoint Scalia’s successor. LOL.
Mark – Repubs were probably prepared for this scenario. They would rather spend the campaign season scaring middle America how we are going to take their guns away from them.
Walter – I hope your right about SCOTUS apathy because they are going ram it down our throats the next 9 months. Except for about a dozen states, they will own the system if we lose the presidency.
My hope is that Democrats generally win when the middle classes believe the system is rigged above them. AND there is lot of that sentiment going around these days. After the primary is decided, let’s gather under the Big Tent and save America from the fascists!
I’ll buy the beer and bring the salsa and Doritos!!!
Rs sanctify the Constitution except when they disagree with it. If they hold up this process until next year, they should be sued for dereliction of duty (as if they aren’t already guilty). The Congress is now dysfunctional, the Presidency has been neutered, and now the SCOTUS is about to be relegated to irrelevancy. Is that the Republican definition of a balance of power? PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY—-the new GOP motto.
David, your analysis is correct, but just needs a more fitting conclusion, IMO.
Today’s GOP does not want government that is based on such things as a “balance of power,” or a checks-and-balances approach, or on advancement/provision for the common good.
In its stridency and extremism, it has moved well past such notions. It seeks only radically less government, by any and all means possible, including fiscally starving its programs, obstructing its constitutional mechanisms of governance, ignoring its legitimate historical roles, spurning the need for a well-educated populace, and denying any strong role for science-based information in decision-making and policy-setting.
The GOP leadership, corrupted byTea Party, neo-con, and libertarian thinking (using the term “thinking” loosely here), wants governance via little to no government at all, and especially seeks laissez-faire policy toward free enterprise at the corporate level.
And, yes, all of that takes a “party before country” mindset……
Well said. Thanks!
The Republicans best be careful what they ask for. It could be Clinton or Sanders appointing the next Supreme Court Justice if they wait until after the election. After the Republican debate Saturday night (or the equivalent of a bunch of three year olds throwing huge temper tantrums) there may not be many left in the Republican party except for the base. In the meantime with only 8 justices left on the court they might have to kiss goodbye getting the court to stay the order on the redistricting of the 1st and 12th Congressional districts much less take the case for a full hearing. And, what does it say about the senators abdicating the oath of office? So much for the love of the Constitution. Sometimes things come back to bite you in the behind.
Mark, the senators prefer to thumb their noses at Obama instead of doing their jobs, even when it is harmful to themselves and to the country to thumb their noses at Obama.
Thomas, I think you underestimate voter apathy when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Most people do not realize what a huge difference one Supreme Court justice can make – a difference for the better or a difference for the worse.
For the life of me I can’t figure out the Republicans’ political calculus on this. Republicans may very well benefit by having hearings, even if (maybe especially if) they ultimately reject the nominee. They show strength by having a rigorous and public vetting process, and they finally get to show the congressional voice they keep claiming has been bypassed for the past seven years. If I were an R Senator, I’d view the opportunity to advise and consent (AKA “pontificate”) on this one as manna from heaven.