Future Democrats should consider nuclear option to 'un-pack' the Supreme Court
By Kevin McDermott, St. Louis Post-DispatchImmediately after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, as the political world observed somber niceties, Mitch McConnell was being Mitch McConnell which is to say, he robotically pivoted to consolidate Republican power, giving no more thought to the good of the country or democracy than a frog snapping up a fly.
Hours after Scalias death, the Republican Senate leader announced he would refuse to consider any replacement nominee from President Barack Obama. Hed instead wait almost a year for the next, yet-unchosen president.
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice, said McConnell, ghosting the majority of Americans who selected Obama twice.
Having snatched a court seat from a president most Americans chose, McConnell handed it to one most didnt. Asterisk President Donald Trump then got to seat a second justice, after Mitch Let the People Decide McConnell rushed a contentious Senate hearing process so voters couldnt register their choice via the upcoming midterms.
Read more: https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/mcdermott-future-democrats-should-consider-nuclear-option-to-un-pack/article_c269f9ee-797d-54e6-a92a-a307319e6dc7.html
duforsure
(11,882 posts)Mitch would remain in control of it, and trump could then force out two more justices like he did to Kennedy , and pick two more justices for life to the Supreme Court. That should be more than enough to scare everyone . Vote them out of office people, if we still can.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)FBaggins
(26,693 posts)He thinks we can do it once we control Congress and the WH again.
He misses that we would need 60 votes in the Senate.
And no... there is no nuclear option for legislation (nor do I think Senate Dems would be willing to do it if it were - given the painful lesson we learned from the last nuclear exchange).
DarthDem
(5,253 posts)The filibuster can be discarded for any sort of vote, with a simple majority vote beforehand.
As for the analysis of the "last exchange," it ignores that Rethugs would have done away with the filibuster for nominees themselves. That was an example of Democrats fighting just as dirty as their good friends across the aisle.
Getting rid of the filibuster for legislation would have to survive a filibuster.
The reason it could be nuked for appointees as because it could be argued that the rule was never meant for them and/or that the constitution required the senate to play the advice/consent role. In adjudicating that debate, a simple majority could rule that the filibuster did not apply (meaning that it had never applied)...
But there is no parallel argument for legislation. It takes only a simple majority to change the rule, but that action can be filibustered.
I would also bet that there are two dozen or more Democrats who would never be stupid enough to vote for it.
You are, with respect, completely wrong. See this article.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-the-senate-ever-kill-the-filibuster/
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)This one shows that Trump agrees with you... and that plenty of republicans wish that it didnt apply... and even proposals on what might be a better structure...
... but no support for how it could happen in the face of opposition from the other party.
You pointed out Reids move wasnt really as wrongheaded as it seemed because republicans were going to do it anyway... so Reid was just proactively playing their game... but how does that argument fly in the current situation? Youre forced to deal with the fact that they didnt get rid of the filibuster for legislation despite wanting to pack the courts... kill the ACA... etc.
Is that because theyre too nice to ever try such a thing? Or simply that they cant?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)The Republicans use it too much and the Democrats almost never use it--except as an excuse to hide behind Republican obstruction.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)I think a law expanding the number of supremes should include a provision that it unpacks if the constitution is changed to limit Supreme Court terms. That gives conservatives incentive to support a constitutional amendment fixing the size of the court and reasonable term limits.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)what would have happened if Senate Majority Leader Robinson hadn't died.
The political situation wasn't so different then from what we have now, with extremes on both sides. The big differences were the Depression, of course, and that the President wasn't an asshole. And the alignments were more complex, with Southern Democrats almost a third party in themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
There is a fair amount of sentiment for expanding the Court, and good arguments on either side. Nothing stopping it but inertia. But, be careful what you wish for. More than one Justice modified philosophy a bit when actually on the Court.
dalton99a
(81,065 posts)Could the nuclear option get rid of the filibuster entirely? Checking Trump's tweet
By Louis Jacobson on Monday, January 22nd, 2018 at 2:09 p.m.
The majority would try to cut off debate, also called invoking cloture. It would fail, because 60 senators do not vote for it. The chair would rule the motion not agreed to. A member of the majority would make a point of order saying that this is inconsistent with the rules. The chair would reject that argument, because it is consistent with precedent and procedure. At that point, the senator would appeal the chairs ruling to the entire body. Then, the Senate would vote, needing only 51 votes to overturn the chair's ruling. This would establish a new procedural norm that invoking cloture only takes 51 votes rather than 60.
Also see
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42929.pdf
Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules
Richard S. Beth | Congressional Research Service | January 22, 2013