Republicans already threatening to block Harris from making SCOTUS picks

[turbinetree]

By Travis Gettys
Published September 30, 2024 9:09 AM ET

Republicans are already threatening to block Kamala Harris from nominating justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two of the leading candidates to replace Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell refused to commit to allowing a confirmation vote for a Harris nominee if she's elected president and Republicans retake the Senate majority, reported CNN.

“It depends,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). “Obviously, they would have to go through the committee process, and so it would depend on that, and then I think it would also depend on who the president nominates.”

https://www.rawstory.com/kamala-harris-supreme-court-2669295265/

I have two words for your party F**K YOU....................and that federalist society horse you ride...........and just for record you and other spineless POS's left in place a psychopath to run for president remember............in fact you and the others in your fascist party "didn't" impeach the psychopath...........it was party over country right ............it has always been party over country........remember how Neil Gorsuch got on the bench.......

[Renew Deal]

1. Would a Democrat say something different than what Cornyn said?

[BWdem4life]

16. Democrats have never actually stolen SC picks

Repigs have.

[tritsofme]

2. This is why keeping our Senate majority is so critically important.

[ananda]

6. Dems have money. Now send it to critical Senate campaigns.

NOW

[-misanthroptimist]

3. Were I President...

...I would tell the Senate "silence implies consent" for judicial appointments. Either they are voted on or I will swear them in.

[dsc]

4. that only gets you a year or two at most

and that is if there is an adjournment.

[-misanthroptimist]

9. Not a recess appoint

I'd go whole hog for-life appointment. And I'd dare them to sue me.

Denial of voting is used because the minority party knows that the appointment will be confirmed. It is a tacit admission that that is the case. Advise and Consent are Constitutional duties of the Senate. Therefore, when a vote is denied, that minority is preventing the Senate from doing those duties.

Senate Rules are for conducting Senate business. They do not apply to the other two Branches, or even the House. They cannot be used as the sole basis to hamstring the essential duties of the other Branches or the House.

Basically, the Constitution takes precedence over the Rules of the Senate. Using those Rules to deny an appointment is turning the Advise and Consent clause on its head. Any President who makes an appointment that is not voted on, up or down, in a timely fashion is allowed to consider that lack as consent.

After all, judicial appointments are, without a doubt, and "official duty" of the President.

[tritsofme]

11. This has always been a goofy idea.

The Senate has rejected nominees through their inaction every year for over two hundred years, at the end of each session they are returned to to the White House.

When the Senate chooses to deny their consent, they are fulfilling their constitutional obligation.

Even if this was some sort of actual principle, which it is not, a determined Senate majority could defeat this scheme simply by holding votes and rejecting the nominees outright. Not exactly a huge burden.

There is a reason that President Obama, a constitutional law professor, and his team rejected this nonsense.

[-misanthroptimist]

13. What's goofy is...

...the assertion that a minority can stop an appointment that only requires a majority vote. That is neither advice or consent and is an inappropriate application of Senate Rules. Less than 50% of the Senate can NOT be allowed to impede the business of this Nation based on nothing more than rules that they themselves made. It's insanity and abuse of power.

You're making lame excuses for the abuser in this instance.

I don't know if you noticed, but Republicans have stolen 2 (two) Supreme Court seats. So, instead of having a 5-4 majority center-left Court, it is 6-3 OoompLoompa.

Saying that this is okay is saying we might as well give up.

[tritsofme]

14. No, it is the acknowledgment that elections have consequences, and demonstrates why we must hold the Senate this year.

I prefer not to deal in fantasy.

The Senate is under no obligation to confirm or hold a vote on any particular nominee.

And as I mentioned, even if this was somehow real, it wouldn’t matter, any determined majority could simply defeat the nominee on the floor.

Unless…I guess we can imagine up some reason why a defeated nominee should still take office?

[-misanthroptimist]

20. Sounds like coloring inside the lines Republicans draw for Democrats

If "elections have consequences", and the Elected President sends a qualified nominee to the Senate, and a majority of the Senate will approve that nominee, and a minority decides to sit on that nominee for...rules they just made up...then it doesn't sound like election consequences have a damned thing to with it.

[tritsofme]

21. In reference to Garland in 2016, there is nothing to suggest he ever had 50+1 votes for confirmation.

In fact, a majority of senators issued statements opposing it. Making this whole line moot.

In losing our Senate majority in 2014, we lost the ability to confirm Obama’s highly qualified nominees.

I point this out because arguments like this are often used to falsely attack President Obama for not “doing enough” to fill the vacancy, when the only “solutions” presented are the stuff of pure fantasy. Mitch McConnell owns it, 100%.

Regardless, if there really was a case where a majority of senators really wanted to confirm a nominee, it would be difficult if not impossible for leadership to keep that nominee off the floor forever.

The bottom line is that a president cannot just magically declare a nominee to be confirmed because she has grown impatient.

[ColinC]

7. Right. This is why Democrats should commit to adding seats.

Not only is it clear they would do the same if the positions were flipped, but they continue to make clear they have no interest in compromise.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. If Dems lost the senate this year, they are likely to regain it in 2026

The shoe will be on the other foot in 2026, with Republicans defending more seats (20j than Democrats (13 seats).

https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_II.htm

Only Ossoff is in a vulnerable Dem seat; for Republicans, possible flips include Collins in ME, Tillis in NC, and Tuberville in AL (it happened once before…), and Mitch is retiring, or will be dead by 2026, so KY is an opportunity as well, and if we’re really dreaming, maybe Graham and Cornyn.

So, any GOP obstruction will last two years at most.

[Emile]

10. I hate Republicans and their fascist agenda.

[peggysue2]

12. Well, these comments indicate the GOP leadership . . .

Sees the writing on the wall. If McConnell is talking Supreme Court nomination blocks, he's looking at the numbers, early voting patterns, enthusiasm and money and scrambling to come up with a plan.

Once he says his aim will be to make a Harris a one-term president, we'll know the die is cast.

Which, of course, makes efforts for a Senate hold/win in November all the more important. It's going to be a stretch but not out of the realm of possibility.

GO BLUE! VOTE DEMOCRACY!

[Mr.Bill]

17. The good news is if the republicans take the Senate,

McConnell has said he will no longer be their leader. The bad news is whoever takes his place will be ten times worse.

[Liberal In Texas]

15. That goes without saying.

This is why we have to keep control of the Senate.

[Moostache]

18. SCOTUS is already a partisan kangaroo court...

Fuck them in the ear... rebalance the court with an expansion from 9 to 15, they can cry like stuck pigs, but fuck 'em in the other ear.

I would LOVE to see a clearinghouse amendment to address:

1) SCOTUS - term limits of age 80 or 24 years on the bench, whichever is reached first
2) SCOTUS - require absentia for ANY conflict of interest or ethics violations
3) SCOUTS - require all 15 circuit courts to have a member named to the SCOTUS and reset the ENTIRE bench accordingly
4) POTUS - Add a maximum age of presidential candidates to be between the ages of 35 and 75 years for a first term and 39 and 79 years for a second term.
5) EC - this ode to slavery goes bye-bye and National Offices (POTUS and VPOTUS) shall be determined by raw popular vote of the ENTIRE NATION - the states will name governors and maintain control over all state offices, but the national office shall be of, by and for THE PEOPLE (not LAND, nor CORPORATIONS/CASH)

[WarGamer]

19. to be honest... if Trump wins and DEMS hold the Senate, Trump ain't getting any picks either.

[Kid Berwyn]

22. Harris and Walz should raise awareness of Senate races

It is vital for our nation that control of the Senate should be held by a Democrats. Here’s why: the Supreme Court, legislation to make the future better, plus tax laws and regulations that make the billionaires and their toadies with the money pay for it…(repeat frequently in states where needed).