Now there's a move afoot--I have no idea how serious it is--to skip a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nominee, whomever she might be, and take the matter straight to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote.
That certainly would be an interesting answer to the Progressive-Democrats' stall tactic of invoking the two-hour rule on Committee hearings (although the rule can be waived on a case by case basis by a privileged motion being voted up).
Hearings aren't required for nominations; they've just been habitually done. The Progressive-Democrats, though, with their performances on the last several Republican nominee hearings, have destroyed the utility of such hearings. On the other hand, skipping the hearing might have negative impacts on some of the more borderline Republicans.
Eric Hines
I disagree on the impact, at least if the nominee makes ample time available to meet one on one or with small groups of Senators. The hearings are little but a grandstanding session for a Senator to try to look good questioning a nominee. I suppose one could argue a nominee might give different answers in private than in public but they also might be more revealing in private. I just don't see any of the fence sitters being swayed by the lack of a public hearing.
ReplyDeleteAs a practical matter, there wouldn't be any effect.
ReplyDeleteAs a political matter, though, I see folks like Romney, worried as he is about what he sees as tradition, wobbling over this departure from past practice, and Gardner, in as tight a race as he is in blue Colorado, worrying about the effect of this departure on his constituents. Similar political concerns for a couple of other reluctant Republicans.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on judicial nominees have been around for 104 years; that's long enough to start a tradition.
Eric Hines
I go back and forth on this. Yes I don't expect anything meaningful out of hearings and would love to deny the Democrats their planned theatrics, but at the same time, I also fully expect them to step deeply in it with some of their questioning of the presumptive candidate Amy Barrett. Namely that at least two Democrat Senators (including the Democrats VP candidate) have expressed a frankly unconstitutional anti-Catholic bias. I'd love for them to do more of the same and reveal their raw bigotry to the general electorate. So I don't know how I'd prefer this to play out.
ReplyDeleteI have wondered on both sides of this as well.
ReplyDeleteKamala Harris could utterly sink the Democrats with her questioning, and maybe we should let her radical base keep telling her how great she is and how she really socked it to 'em.
OTOH, a show is a wild card for both sides, and I am risk-averse on unpredctably popularity items.
American Thinker has an interesting suggestion: a recess appointment, which would mean that in the event of the Supreme Court having to make a decision on the November election, there would not be a 4-4 deadlock. Moreover, there is precedent for a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.Trump Should Make a Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution, at Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, provides that [t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
In other words, the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments, which are temporary, but effective, while the Senate is in recess.
This includes the power to make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
Why is there a need to do this?
Because this presidential election is a litigation fiasco waiting to happen, creating a compelling reason for a recess appointment, followed by permanent confirmation of the recess appointee. The Supreme Court does not need to be divided four-four on matters that might adjudicate a presidential election, not for one second longer than it needs to be.....
A dozen times, presidents have made recess appointments of justices to the Supreme Court prior to Senate confirmation. Eleven out of twelve of those recess-appointed justices were ultimately confirmed by the Senate. Recess appointments have been made by some of the most revered presidents of the ages.
If President Trump makes a recess appointment this October, say, of Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett, he would join the ranks of presidential giants like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight David Eisenhower. Three of those guys made it to Mount Rushmore, and all made recess appointments to the Supreme Court, ahead of Senate confirmation.
Washington and Eisenhower made multiple recess appointments to the Court.
This doesn't preclude Trump nominating someone before the recess.
I believe both the House and Senate have to agree on adjournment to make a recess appointment possible. I've seen speculation that the President could use Article II section 3 to force adjournment but I'm not sure that's worked.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the hearings are going to be a complete waste of time in terms of their ostensible purpose. Nevertheless, I agree with AVI they may be an excellent opportunity for a Dem.-leadership faceplant, and in any case I don't think voters would much like being cut out of the loop on a matter of such intense public interest. I'd also predict some hard feelings about a recess appointment: too much of an end-run. Between the two, I'd choose the decent shot at a Dem.-leadership faceplant.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't inspired by Harris's grilling of other candidates--aggressive but vague--but to the extent that it played at all, it played because a Strong Woman held an Evil Patriarch to account, in tone if not in substance. If she's grilling a woman it's going to play more like a cat fight if the nominee responds irritably, or just Harris being unpleasant (even the stereotypical unpleasant ex-wife) if the nominee keeps her cool.