Editor's Note: While a lot of the political posts on this blog are tagged with "Republican Tendencies," the Republican party is not always correct, as demonstrated in this post.
Robert Reich posted this on Facebook:
This strikes me as a reasonable idea:
If the Senate fails to provide the President “advice and consent” on his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, within a reasonable amount of time, the Senate should be deemed to have waived its right under the Constitution to provide such advice and consent. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly held that a constitutional right may be forfeited by the failure to make timely assertion of that right.
So President Obama should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act within, say, 90 days (the historical average between nomination and confirmation is 25 days) to be a waiver of its right to participate in the process. If after 90 days the Senate still hasn't acted, the President will exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court.
I expect the Senate would then bring suit challenging the appointment. And the Supreme Court would decide, presumably with Garland recusing himself.
Our system would work better this way. The threat that a president could proceed with an appointment if the Senate fails to do its job would force the Senate to provide its advice and consent on a timely basis so our government can function.
I have a problem with the above scenario. I don't think it is "reasonable" that the President "deems its failure to act" with a number of days he pulls out of thin air. The idea that 90 days is a suitable threshold is based upon just choosing a random number.
The real problem is that the Senate, controlled by the Republicans, won't even bring it up. They are stupid enough to squander this opportunity to be united. In the past, given the opportunity to be united, such as a budget crisis, the Republicans caved after drawing a line. They got up in front of a microphone and said, "Unless X, we do Y." Shortly thereafter, the Republicans caved and gave the President exactly what he wanted in the first place.
That's the real reason Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) won't even consider the nomination of Garland, but he's too political to say it. He knows that even discussing the nomination will lead to an actual vote. If actually voted upon, I foresee Garland as the next Supreme Court justice. Grassley knows this! The others in his political party will cave - there's no track record of unification!
In defense of their inaction, Republicans cling to a speech from 1992 by Joe Biden. It makes the Republicans look whiny and incompetent. The use of this rule is not applicable, as this article points out. Even the ultra-liberal MediaMatters.org has assembled a reasonable defense of why the Republicans are building the base of their objections on a sandy foundation, which will never withstand the use of logic - as read about it in as this article discusses.
Having a "hearing" about a Supreme Court justice nominee is not the same as "approving" a Supreme Court justice nominee... unless you're a Republican and have no faith in your fellow Republicans to be united.
No comments:
Post a Comment