"Nuclear option" or "Legitimacy off-switch"?

[ck4829]

It's time to start putting it out there, that the Senate under McConnell is no longer a political body matching with the body described in the first article of the Constitution.

[FBaggins]

1. The filibuster isn't part of the constitution. Nt

[ck4829]

2. Neither is changing the rules to benefit Trump

[Thomas Hurt]

3. The GOP did not change the rules

they violated their oaths of office by out right refusing to carry out their duties of advise and consent.

[ck4829]

5. Said it better than I was able to

[FBaggins]

7. Question for you

What (constitutionally) is the difference between USSC appointments and appellate court appointments?

[Thomas Hurt]

11. You ask the wrong question...

How many appellate court appointments are really necessary to do the country's business?

If you know the answer and we are short appellate judges then neither party should be refusing to do their jobs.

If you know the answer and we have a surplus, then why fill the appellate positions at all.

We know the number of justices required and one of them is missing.

[FBaggins]

12. That's dodging the question

You're essentially saying that the behavior is ok if you have a good reason or "we're the good guys, so it's ok when we do it". That's not a constitutional standard.

The specific example is nonsense because both parties agreed that there was a shortage of appellate judges.

Rephrasing the question - you claim that there is a constitutional duty of advise and consent that Republicans were violating... what is that duty and is there a constitutional difference between the two categories?

[Thomas Hurt]

13. I am not dodging the question

as my comment stated, neither party should be shirking their duties if there is a need for a judge or justice.

I don't know that what you say about both parties is true, as I recall the GOP was at least making the excuse that no more judges were required to fiscal responsibility, (we couldn't afford anymore of them) and that they weren't necessary.


If what you say is the case then neither the Dems or the GoP should be obstructing appointments.

There is no constitutional provision for political one up man ship to pad the judiciary with one party's nominees over the other, but you seem to be tacitly arguing that very position.

[FBaggins]

14. And yet you still haven't answered it

What is the difference between the advise and consent duty that the Senate has for Supreme Court justices vs. those on federal appellate courts?

It should be easy to answer. Either the constitution draws a distinction between the two or it doesn't.

I can give you a hint... there's absolutely no provision for whether a judge is needed - or whether the two parties agree on that fact.

[FBaggins]

6. So it's ok when we change the rules, but...

... a violation of the original constitutional design when they do it?

[Agschmid]

10. Apparently.

[ck4829]

16. I thought it was part of a compromise

[FBaggins]

18. Definitely not

There was a prior compromise (the "gang of 14&quot ... but that didn't last. The rule change was unilateral (and opposed by many of us here on DU who saw today's events coming).

[Agschmid]

9. The rule change doesn't benefit Trump it benefits the party in power.

[ck4829]

17. Right. It certainly doesn't benefit the governed

[FakeNoose]

4. Neither is packing the Supreme Court

... with people who are guaranteed to vote conservative on every issue.

[WillowTree]

15. And yet people right here on DU.......

.......are advocating for packing the Court with justices who will consistently vote with a liberal POV once the Democrats re-take the majority. It can't be OK for one if it isn't for the other.

And, so it doesn't go out of context, I don't think it's OK for either party to do it. That said, however, it only stands to reason that a president who's a Democrat is going to appoint justices who are more Left-leaning and those who are Republicans are going to appoint conservatives. That's pretty much how it works, like it or not.

[jmg257]

8. Of course - its members are no longer voted

By the State legislatures, but by the people.

Other then that, plus 2/3 required for impeachments and treaties, it's not very specific on procedure.