A Solution to Senate Obstructionism: The Reverse Bartleby

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Mar 31, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    An intriguing idea as to how President Obama and his Supreme Court nominee can defeat Republican obstructionism (from Slate)

    There is actually quite an interesting, and well-argued, article supporting this in the Yale Law Journal. While the Constitution requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate on senior Judicial Appointments, it is notably vague as to whether that Consent has to be Implicit ("We didn't say you couldn't") or Express - ("Yes you can.")

    If President Obama told the Senate that unless they hold hearings and vote to deny Garland as Supreme Court Justice by a certain date then he would be taking his place on the court. I think Senate Republicans would find themselves in a very tough place trying to rationalize why they didn't - under those circumstances - hold hearings and an up or down vote.

    Sadly, I don't think President Obama is going to throw us into any more of a Constitutional crisis at this stage of his Presidency. He could. But unfortunately, he's simply too decent and sensible of a President to do so.
     
  2. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    Everyone knows the rules don't apply to Democrats. It's only fair if it screws Republicans.

    Constitutional Interpretations by university professors are only worth the paper they are printed on.
     
  3. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #5
    A recess appointment for the supreme court only lasts until the next president is inaugurated.

    I would sooner follow Biden's and Obama's advice that positions of this magnitude should not be decided until after the next president is elected. I understand that Obama and Biden both changed their beliefs when the ball was in their court and they want a progressive appointment... in 1992 and 2006 how could they have ever predicted that they would be in a position to appoint a justice during an election year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

    http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    They were talking about if there was a resignation since that would be done for political reasons. A death is not a judge resigning because he is worried that his party will lose the White House.
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    I like this. If they refuse to do their job, they should forfeit their say in the matter. I also like the idea that advice and consent, should not stop a sitting President who won the frick'n election from appointing and putting into place members of his Administration that he wants, (which the Republicans have held up several times, for no legal grounds other than they are mad at President Obama), while acknowledging that the SCOTUS is not part of his Administration, it needs 9 members and the Congress has a duty to staff it, not drag their feet for political objectives.

    Such a cynical and self serving view. :)
     
  6. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    You might say the same thing of anything that comes out of a printing press. But let us not idly discount the persuasive power of words.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Biden was talking about a resignation/death after the end of June (and therefore a vote at the start of October, at most a month before the election). Obama filibustered a specific nominee.
     
  8. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #10
    The Supreme Court has gone many months (years?) without seats being filled in the past. This is not something to be rushed or taken lightly.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    And yet the Republicans are acting in an unprecedented way.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    Obama will go to his comfort zones -- "The View" and "Ellen" -- to complain about the Republicans but he doesn't have the stones to actually do anything about it. He's a pusillanimous pampered pipsqueak.
     
  11. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    It should go both ways.

    As we all tend to remind each other depending on topical fun issue afoot.
     
  12. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #14
    Thank you for that word.
     
  13. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    I think Obama has done the calculation that its better for him to let the Republicans take electoral heat for their intransigence. He believes, on good analysis, that there will most likely be s Democratic President-elect come November, and chances are looking up for a Democratic-controlled Senate into the bargain. Meaning the Justice who ultimately takes the seat vacated by Scalia will probably be more unambiguously liberal than Garland. And younger too.

    Putting the country into a quasi-Constitutional crisis in early September, by directing a "tacitly Consented" Garland to take his seat doesn't help the Democrats. It certainly doest really help the country. It's possible that the other Supreme Court Justices themselves would reject such an appointee. And throwing down a gauntlet in April or May, by daring the Republicans to do nothing on his nominee, is a risky bet will little upside too. They might very well take him up on his offer, and find some rationale to either filibuster or reject Garland.

    Obama cares about his legacy. And appointing two solid Justices who have shown a strong commitment to upholding the civil rights and equal opportunity viewpoint is not a bad record. One thats unlikely to be improved much by appointing a 60-something centrist who, truth be told, might go either way on key decisions.

    Obama is playing the long, smart game. No wonder so many people of limited intellect and imagination don't like him.
     
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    A real leader wouldn't obsess over his legacy like Obama. A real leader would challenge the GOP for their dereliction of duty and bring his case directly to the people, like Ronald Reagan did. However, Obama is a weak man lacking the intestinal fortitude to take the hard way even if it's the right way. He'd rather pass time with flighty women on The View than grapple with Congress.
     
  15. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    Oh, come on...As much as I enjoyed the ending of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", there's ballsy and there's stupid. Shrewd is an attribute we should like in our leaders, even if it's dramatic weight is diminished.

    PS. VrDrew - you probably could've left that last sentence unwritten...
     
  16. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #18
    I don't think it would be dereliction of duty. He can recommend an appointment and that is it. The president is the executive of the US, he is not the boss or master of the people. Just because a president says jump does not mean that any person or elected official has to jump.

    I do agree, he will not grapple with congress. His problem is with the senate and the house. If he cannot meet with congress regularly to come to an agreement, with the people's representatives, but instead just spout some talking points during an interview or press briefing then he is useless.
     
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19
    I completely and vigorously disagree. He'd rather pass time with flighty women on Ellen than grapple with Congress.
     
  18. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #20
    Well, at least we now know who aaronvan really is.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    All leaders obsess over their legacy.
     
  20. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #22
    It's called intellectual honesty. Either you have it or you don't.

    As for obstructionism, I would love to see a House and Senate that requires legislation from the other chamber to be brought up for a floor vote within a certain time frame. No more allowing one individual from either party to sit on it.

    I think the power sharing agreement when the Senate was split 50-50 worked great. Even though the GOP technically controlled since they had the VP, either Senate leader could move a vote to the floor. No more protecting the party from votes they don't want to have to make.
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23

    One of the finest Yiddish thespians since Mikhoels. I wear that badge with honor.​
     

Share This Page