It could happen. But I suspect if Republicans tried they would lose at the ballot box in 2018.
I already said Republicans should look at any nomination Obama sends them. So you wont get an argument from me about their blanket refusal to even look at nominee. What I disagree with you about is calling the court dysfunctional. The court is functional with one justice missing. I also disagreed with you about Schumer. Schumer is a lying sack of shit. His statements were clear that any Bush nominee should not get considered. A supreme dying on the bench is not unusual.
Looks like the president's hands aren't completely tied here:
In the United States of America, Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to "on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses or either of them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_session
It wouldn't force a vote, but it would likely force a spectacle.
I agree with you that what some Democrats have said then and now are totally different. (although not Biden, actually). The thing is that you can find members of any party that say stupid shit like this and there's a HUGE difference between one person saying it and actually doing it. For example, Democratic lawmakers said that we should impeach Bush, but that would be no defense in my opinion if Republicans actually tried to impeach Obama.
Obamas best bet if the GOP actually goes through with their threat is a recess appointment. Calling a special session would actually take away the recess appointment option. And the special session doesnt mean Obama can direct them to view his nomination. The GOP could spend the special session picking fantasy football teams for the congress league if they wanted.
Absolutely. That is why ability to look up video from decades ago and spread it via social media is so powerful. These asshats say something once and think they can say something opposite 20 years later and nobody will remember. Republicans are no different than Democrats in this regard. Im sure a bunch of them went on about how Democrats cant put off a nomination process for a republican president in the past. Today they are saying they will block the nomination.
Recess appointment of a SC justice is a political loser for Obama. It's really the only misstep he can make with the position McConnell took right out of the gate. The brazenness of that still really shocks me. There were about a dozen different ways to stymie a nomination by Obama and he picks the one with the least political cover. Either it was a grave miscalculation from what I have to think was out of emotion, or they really do fully expect to pay zero political price for their obstruction. If that does in fact turn out to be the case I think the harm done to any remaining perceived legitimacy of the government would be irrevocable. No order, no decorum, whoever is willing to go the furthest wins. Maybe that's the ultimate plan because they're better at taking and leveraging hostages than actually governing.
There has been a lot of interesting writing about this sort of thing, specifically by a guy named Juan Linz. His writing basically says that historically, presidential systems like ours almost always collapse. The basic problem is that to get anything done the various branches have to work together but they aren't elected together. That means you can have a situation like today where both the Republicans and Democrats can claim a legitimate mandate from the voters but to do opposite things. That is a recipe for dysfunction and governance failure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-democracy-juan-linz-thinks-thats-mistaken/
In his opinion what helped the US escape this trap for years was that our parties had a great deal of overlap. The most liberal Republican was usually considerably to the left of the most conservative Democrat, and vice versa. That's not the case anymore as the Democrats have become more liberal and the Republicans have become much, MUCH more conservative. And so our government is starting to fail in its basic functions.
He says that these sorts of systems usually collapse into a dictatorship, which doesn't seem that far fetched. It also seems pretty sad.
Unfortunately, I agree with this perspective, and I don't know if there's a realistic answer. Having more than two parties (or even no parties at all) would help, but that's not going to happen.
The loss of the middle ground people on both sides of the isle (the blue dogs and the more moderate/lib repubs, they are a dying breed) is making everything grind to a halt, with less and less capacity to build a path through the gridlock caused by differing ideologies.
Unfortunately, I agree with this perspective, and I don't know if there's a realistic answer. Having more than two parties (or even no parties at all) would help, but that's not going to happen.
The loss of the middle ground people on both sides of the isle (the blue dogs and the more moderate/lib repubs, they are a dying breed) is making everything grind to a halt, with less and less capacity to build a path through the gridlock caused by differing ideologies.
GOP can argue that the nominee is not qualified if it wants to. But since they rejected him or her before they even know who it is, that's going to be hard to convince voters of.
Thank our media for hammering everything into false equivalencies, merely repeating talking points instead of challenging them, and measuring left/right by political parties instead of an objective scale. If this democracy fails it's because the media failed before it. Maybe the internet can turn that around, but without it I'm sure collapse would be a forgone conclusion.
I actually see Trump's rise as a legitimately hopeful sign. Maybe he's the hero we deserve but not the one we need right now.
I think the internet makes it worse, not better. In the past we all consumed a relatively common media that wasn't too ideologically biased either way. (no matter what some people claim) Now, people often only consume the news that tells them what they want to hear which just leads to further polarization.
While I agree that Gore would have lost the recount under most standards it seems unlikely that the legislature could have overruled the court to change the outcome after the election had already taken place. I doubt the federal courts would have allowed that. Hell, the FL Supreme Court might have just struck that down themselves.
No court including SCOTUS has jurisdiction to overrule the legislature in this. Courts can't simply say "what the Constitution says is unconstitutional." And in this case the legislature is given sole and complete control over the nomination of electors to the Electoral College which is why I cited the exact verbiage: "Each state shall select, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." There's no follow up clause saying "... unless some court decides otherwise." The state legislators could if they wished name electors who have pledged to someone other than who won the election in their state, and no one has a single constitutional recourse.
No whether as a practical and political matter the Florida legislature would have done that is another story, but there's no doubt whatsoever that they had (and always will have absent Constitutional Amendment) that power. And as you even agreed, it's a moot point since Bush won the vote, even under the standard Gore was asking to be used.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Literally every clause in the Constitution and every law ever written has the implicit text appended to it that says "unless some court decides otherwise". That's what judicial review is.
I absolutely see an avenue for the courts to overturn that, saying that the legislature already did decide on how its electors would be appointed for that election and that they can't enact ex post facto laws to change the results. So yes, people are reasonably likely to have a constitutional recourse.
You can declare that there's no doubt, but your declarations don't really mean anything. There would definitely be a lawsuit and in my opinion it would have a reasonable chance at success.
If I were a judge and Obama decided to nominate me for the Supreme Court position , I would have to really consider whether or not to even accept that nomination, knowing you dont even have a chance at succeeding. Who would want a failed bid on their resume?
Judicial review isn't in the Constitution. It's been established process since Marbury v. Madison but isn't ironclad. In a constitutional crisis precipitated by courts attempting to assert judicial review against the clear language of the Constitution they'd lose and rightfully so.
Again, arguing for more and more farfetched scenarios where Gore could have somehow been declared President elect by whatever deus ex machina means isn't a good use of our time 16 years later.
why would that matter? I think plenty would be chomping at the bit to hire a rejected SCOTUS nomination, no?
I think the internet makes it worse, not better. In the past we all consumed a relatively common media that wasn't too ideologically biased either way. (no matter what some people claim) Now, people often only consume the news that tells them what they want to hear which just leads to further polarization.
You may be right .. but I would think you could be in the same/better position by having the president submit your nominination and respectfully decline to accept the nomination. especially if there is no way your getting the Senates approval