Quote:
Originally Posted by callipygian
I disagree.
Garland was a textbook compromise candidate. Impeccably qualified, politically only moderately liberal, and judicially centrist, probably would end up being a swing vote on polarizing issues. (Which I argue the Supreme Court needs more of, but that's a different thread.)
Republicans even floated his name as an alternative to Sotomayor and Kagan earlier in the Obama Presidency. He would have been snap confirmed a year earlier.
He almost certainly would have been confirmed if it came to a vote.
I think I need to be more expansive in my remarks. Regarding my "end result would have been the same" should be taken in the context of the looming election. As you have correctly noted, the Republicans, rightly or wrongly (but politcally expediently) used an upcoming Supreme Court nomination to motivate their voting base.
The comments below should be considered in my most amicable nit-for-nit reply.
Quote:
"Lame duck" is typically used to describe the period between the election (November) and inauguration (January).
The 'typical' use of the term is also restricted to outgoing Presidents that won't be be returning in January.
Quote:
Extending it back to February is only possible when you count the campaign.
Agreed. I also think both parties would take advantage of any percieved weakness of an outgoing President, irrespective of timing.
Quote:
Extending "lame duck" rules to cover a Presidential campaign ends up really eating into a President's term - Cruz announced his candidacy in early 2015.
I wasn't aware of any politically significant "rules" applicable to lame duck status, irrespective of its actual or functional duration.
Quote:
The Senate "tradition" is going to sprawl way out of control if people don't stand up to it. Republican Senators should have been chastised to suggest they would have blocked Clinton's nominees indefinitely. Democratic Senators should be chastised for suggesting they will indefinitely filibuster Trump's nominees. All Senators should pretty much be chastised for filibustering anything short of "hang on for 24 hours because pending DNA results may indicate this nominee is actually a lizard-person."
If there needs to be a Senate "tradition" that is upheld, confine it to the actual lame duck period - Election Day to Inauguration Day.
The filibuster is certainly a very long held tradition. And it's a sword that cuts both ways. My opinion is that it should not be abandoned because it potentially provides a safeguard against the "tyranny of the majority."
I am indifferent to the lame duck definition and any time frame assigned to it. Fact is, either party will prey opportunistically on their opponent's weakness whenever it's perceived.
I have no idea what to do about the the rightous chastisement due both parties unless you're willing to accept my nomination to chair the "Senate Play Nice and Fair" oversight committee.