Tim Kaine: If Republicans block 9th SC justice, nuclear option ready

[ApatheticAustrian]

Kaine predicts Supreme Court rule change by Senate Democrats
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/tim-kaine-supreme-court-senate-rules/index.html

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is predicting that Senate Democrats will "change the Senate rules" to confirm a ninth Supreme Court justice if Republicans continue to block confirmation of any new appointments.
"I am a US senator. I have a prediction -- this is not a guarantee -- and I'm not revealing inside intel," said Kaine, who represents Virginia.

"I was in the Senate when the Republicans' stonewalling around appointments caused the Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice."
"If these guys think they're going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, 'We're not going to let you thwart the law.' And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law that the court will be nine members."

[Panda Express]

Democrats better realize they will only have the senate for 2 years and need to pass everything they can. 

[ApatheticAustrian]

Democrats better realize they will only have the senate for 2 years and need to pass everything they can. 

sure.

but if the GOP really wants to block all justices from hearings......this is a reasonable threat, imho.

[Adam Griffin]

Hopefully they use the nuclear option on everything, and not just appointments. Especially if we make gains in the House, it'll be great to force Paul Ryan's 10-seat majority into one awkward position after another on legislation, watching his caucus slowly rapidly disintegrate into madness. Democrats need to stop worrying about what'll happen if they lose control of all branches in 2036 or whenever.

[wolfsblood07]

My thinking on this is that elections have consequences.  We were stupid enough to elect Obama, so Obama gets to nominate the justice.  And he should be confirmed unless he's incompetent or corrupt or otherwise ineligible.  This talk from Cruz and McCain about not confirming anyone that Hillary nominates, I just think it makes no sense and will eventually bite us in the ass.  In the meantime, this guy that Obama selected might be as good as we'll get, and he doesn't get a hearing.

[Lyin' Steve]

My thinking on this is that elections have consequences.  We were stupid enough to elect Obama, so Obama gets to nominate the justice.  And he should be confirmed unless he's incompetent or corrupt or otherwise ineligible.  This talk from Cruz and McCain about not confirming anyone that Hillary nominates, I just think it makes no sense and will eventually bite us in the ass.  In the meantime, this guy that Obama selected might be as good as we'll get, and he doesn't get a hearing.

Total agreement.  If Republicans are blockading the basic functioning of this country according to the constitution, for what even they admit are purely partisan, political reasons, the nuclear option should be used with extreme prejudice.

I would feel the same way if Democrats were doing it.

Hold the hearings, and if Clinton nominates someone obviously unfit like Harriet Meiers, or even an obviously extreme partisan choice like Clarence Thomas (as we know him today), by all means, strike the nomination down and tell her to come back with someone else.

Congressional primaries are really the cause of this.  Republicans are too afraid of being attacked from the right.  "John McCain was the 51st vote to confirm Elana Kagan" and so on.  Justices used to mostly be confirmed nearly unanimously.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats better realize they will only have the senate for 2 years and need to pass everything they can. 

Republicans need know that the game that they played with the nomination of Merrick Garland is a high-risk, low-yield gamble... a bad bet.

[Lincoln Republican]

Anyone should realize by now, after his nervous, shrill, and childish debate performance against the very cool and competent Mike Pence, that Kaine is a loose cannon, not up to the task to which he has been entrusted.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Anyone should realize by now, after his nervous, shrill, and childish debate performance against the very cool and competent Mike Pence, that Kaine is a loose cannon, not up to the task to which he has been entrusted.

one could argue that he has fulfilled the task he was trying to do, even while mister biden would have been much better at it.

but this is not the point, since every democrat is going to use the nuclear option if the status quo is the same after the election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh. I agree with him, but those are the things you say after the election, not before.

For all we know, we might still have to deal with a GOP Senate.

[pbrower2a]

Anyone should realize by now, after his nervous, shrill, and childish debate performance against the very cool and competent Mike Pence, that Kaine is a loose cannon, not up to the task to which he has been entrusted.

Tim Kaine let Mike Pence seem reasonable -- so long as he ended up disagreeing with Donald Trump. He lost the contest against Mike Pence but gave Democrats material for attacking Donald Trump.

So he can't defend Donald Trump's foreign policy? No problem. Neither can the Clinton/Kaine team.

[Vosem]

Thank goodness for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. He'll keep that hallowed institution's traditions intact.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm all for critically evaluating every major judge Hillary puts up. But critical evaluation does not mean automatic rejection. I legitimately like Garland, Sirvansian doesn't have any clear red flag, and I imagine there are other acceptable options too.

I think the dems should go for a midway nuclear option to start - 55 vote threshold. I think it's important that SCOTUS nominations get at least a little support from the opposition. But I could see myself supporting the full nuclear option if things get really bad.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! Democrats need to realize that rather than hurting Republicans, this has helped them.

If Obama wanted his nominee confirmed, he could have appointed a conservative replacement for Scalia.   

[ApatheticAustrian]

If Obama wanted his nominee confirmed, he could have appointed a conservative replacement for Scalia.   

garland is as conservative as about every second republican SC nominee has been until GWB.

if the republicans share the opinion, their way or highway, even if they are losing the presidency, they are trying to destroy one of the three branches on the long run - period.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! Democrats need to realize that rather than hurting Republicans, this has helped them.

If Obama wanted his nominee confirmed, he could have appointed a conservative replacement for Scalia.   

Obama made public that he was considering Sandoval for the position and the GOP said no to that (Sandoval took himself out of consideration after the GOP said no.)

[ProudModerate2]

I have no problem with the idea of initiating the nuclear option, if Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) are trying to block any consideration of a Supreme Court Justice.
This third branch of our government deserves to be made whole, and this current game that Pubs are playing is not only dangerous, but unconstitutional.

If not mistaken, Dole (when a Senator) once proposed that a first vote should be exercised after a legitimate amount of time (say 30 days) with a higher number of votes (60 votes) required to approve. If that failed, a second wait of say 60 days was then required for additional debate, and then a second vote only requiring say 55 votes to approve. If again this failed, then an additional waiting period for debate and final vote of 51 votes would be required to approve.

This Dole proposition may have been for approval of laws, but I don't see why it can not be exercised for approval of justices, judges, cabinet members, etc.
This way, there can NEVER be a complete roadblock to nominations the president makes. If the President can get 51 votes then eventually in time, the nominee is in. Period !
No more bulls**t games, regardless of which party controls the presidency !
How is our government suppose to properly function, if the Senate fails to allow vacancies to be filled ? A party wins the presidential election, and that president should be allowed to have his nominations heard, and filled with 51 votes (50 + Vice President if the Senate vote is 50/50).

[SirMuxALot]

This third branch of our government deserves to be made whole, and this current game that Pubs are playing is not only dangerous, but unconstitutional.

A strange definition of unconstitutional.

Nothing in the appointments clause instructs the Senate on how they are to exercise their advice and consent.  Nor is there anything similar that Hamilton writes in Federalist #76.

I know you don't like it, but as someone prominent once famously stated, "elections have consequences".  Undoubtedly this also applies to 100 separate Senate seat elections.

Future elections are sure to resolve this impasse, eventually.  Patience will be rewarded, one way or another.

[ProudModerate2]

This third branch of our government deserves to be made whole, and this current game that Pubs are playing is not only dangerous, but unconstitutional.

A strange definition of unconstitutional.
Nothing in the appointments clause instructs the Senate on how they are to exercise their advice and consent.  Nor is there anything similar that Hamilton writes in Federalist #76.
I know you don't like it, but as someone prominent once famously stated, "elections have consequences".  Undoubtedly this also applies to 100 separate Senate seat elections.
Future elections are sure to resolve this impasse, eventually.  Patience will be rewarded, one way or another.

Yes, but "advice and consent" does not mean anything close to "we are not going to hear your nomination at all," "wait until we (the Senate majority) feel comfortable," "you are not even President yet, but we think we are going to block your nominations, regardless .... forever."

You say "future elections are sure to resolve this impasse eventually," well if the Dems take control of the Senate in this election, then that time is now (Jan 2017) !

[SirMuxALot]

Yes, but "advice and consent" does not mean anything close to "we are not going to hear your nomination at all,"

But that is just your opinion of what you *want* the constitution to mean by "advice and consent".  The constitution does not have any such language, which makes it very difficult to argue that it's therefore unconstitutional.

If you believe it's unconstitutional, then you would have to believe that the Supreme Court could order the Senate to "hear" a nomination.  I don't think any Supreme Court would make such a ruling.

[ProudModerate2]

Yes, but "advice and consent" does not mean anything close to "we are not going to hear your nomination at all,"

But that is just your opinion of what you *want* the constitution to mean by "advice and consent".  The constitution does not have any such language, which makes it very difficult to argue that it's therefore unconstitutional.
If you believe it's unconstitutional, then you would have to believe that the Supreme Court could order the Senate to "hear" a nomination.  I don't think any Supreme Court would make such a ruling.

I understand what you are implying, but for sure the visionaries of the Constitution did not intend for the Senate to have the power to do nothing with nominations, or to tell an incoming president (who hasn't even been elected yet) that anything he/she is going to do, is not even going to be considered AT ALL. I mean how stupid and childish is that ?

[Ogre Mage]

The Supreme Court blockade currently being undertaken by Senate Republicans is unprecedented, except for an event in 1866:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe Senate Republicans when they suggest that they will attempt to block President Clinton's nominees indefinitely.  If they persist in this, there really is no other choice but the nuclear option.  This has already gone on for far too long.  Of course, someday there will be a Republican President, a Democratic Senate and a Supreme Court vacancy.  Will all the GOP avatars go into self-righteous b!tch moan whine mode when we return the favor?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This third branch of our government deserves to be made whole, and this current game that Pubs are playing is not only dangerous, but unconstitutional.

A strange definition of unconstitutional.

Nothing in the appointments clause instructs the Senate on how they are to exercise their advice and consent.  Nor is there anything similar that Hamilton writes in Federalist #76.

Why should there be?  The Founders failed to realize that we'd develop national political parties and at the time the Constitution was written would have generally been horrified by the idea.  The kind of hyperpartisanship we see today was never envisaged by them, and our system has no formal mechanisms to deal it. Rather it makes use of informal mechanisms, but if one side decides to abandon them then the other has little recourse but to devise new mechanisms.

[President Johnson]

He's right. Time for the senate GOP to do its job.

[SWE]

lol. It's great that the Democrats are looking at winning an election in the biggest landslide since at least 1988 and aren't planning on doing anything with it unless Republicans flat out abolish a branch of government.

For all we know, we might still have to deal with a GOP Senate.

Unless you're Talleyrand, you really have no basis for treating this as a possibility.