The Justice is retiring at the end of July. If the Republicans in the Senate can get their act together, they should have plenty of time to confirm President Trump's chosen replacement.
Soon we will hear the sound of lamentations.
UPDATE:
Lamentations.
That won't be possible. Lame duck Senator Jeff Flake, nominal Republican from Arizona, has already said he's going to block all future judicial confirmations until he gets his way on tariffs.
ReplyDeleteHe's happy to surrender the Supreme Court to the "liberal" wing, a coterie that considers the Constitution to be mere suggestion.
Eric Hines
I was just reading an irritable piece at Slate about how he's given up on what they took to be his honorable crusade. It made me wonder if what's really going on is that he finally realized the liberal justices are barking mad.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jeff Flake, bring it on.
He may be under some pressure to reconsider that decision. Not that I consider an extra six months of his way on tariffs to be a price that isn't worth paying for a fifth SCOTUS Justice with Constitutional views.
ReplyDeleteFlake's ego is too big for him to feel any pressure. In fact, the pressure would only feed his sense of his own importance. I'm half tempted to engineer a circumstance that engenders a confirmation vote when he's absent and unable to vote, with Pence then casting the tie-breaking vote. However, any Justice nominee we'd want confirmed would himself reject such a move. And properly so.
ReplyDeleteAs for a vote on tariffs just to satisfy Senator High Pockets, I'm spring-loaded against the precedent (but not yet firm). The Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and it gives the President executive power, which necessarily if not explicitly, gives him critical control over international relations--of which international trade is central, that trade being about foreign relations and not about economics. I'm reluctant to alter that balance of power.
Eric Hines
McConnell blew up the filibuster for this. Maybe he’ll blow up judicial holds too. It’s just another Senate rule, and of less majesty in our tradition.
ReplyDeleteOr, you know, give him the vote with a whip count that’s solid enough to overturn a veto. Then the confirmation vote. Then, after the veto, maybe everyone stays with Jeff and maybe not — depends on whether there were any GOPe defections on confirmation.
ReplyDeleteThis is the big show. Anything goes.
It's not a matter of filibusters or of Senate holds--and McConnell already is primed to ignore holds, too. The Senate vote stands at 50 Republicans and 49 Progressive-Democrats. Flake will not just hold, or abstain, he'll vote "No" in order to get his way--or just out of anti-Trump pique.
ReplyDeleteI'm not enamored of the precedent of giving the Congress a vote on tariffs, no matter how carefully engineered a particular vote might be. If they don't like them, they can push a bill past the President; giving the Congress a veto role on every foreign policy move a President makes destroys the separation of powers. Almost as bad, foreign policy done by a committee of 535 means no crisis response can be done promptly. Things move at the speed of heat these days, not the speed of horses or automobiles.
Eric Hines
These are reasonable points; but they weigh against a great weight. The SCOTUS has acted as a rolling committee for on-the-fly Constitutional Amendments since before my father was born. One more originalist, textualist voice and we will secure a real and binding Constitution for our children and grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteFor that, I'd let tariffs become impossible to enact if necessary.
Let's see who Trump nominates.
ReplyDeleteFair.
ReplyDelete...they weigh against a great weight.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I'm only spring-loaded and not dead set.
AVI: I only hope it's not Brett Kavanaugh. He's much better placed staying on the DC Circuit where he can be a bit of a counterweight against Obama's having stacked that court.
Eric Hines
You made me laugh out loud Grim.
ReplyDeleteFlake said he won't oppose. Somebody must have talked to him.
I wrote before seeing the news that Trump will stay with his previous list. I am relieved, and pleased.
ReplyDeleteI am also pleased, and good news about Flake.
ReplyDeleteI'll believe it about Flake when I see the vote count.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
In the tweet in the OP, Stephen's response to Matthew Kovach's hysteria is much funnier than what I would have written.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that Kovach is cruelly dissing blind folks--excuse me, the visually othered--with his dismissal of those who fight the darkness every instance of their existence.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines