General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A top aide for Senator Reid said this on MSNBC and it left me stunned. [View all]StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)onto the Supreme Court, even if the president decided the Senate had waived its right to advise and consent. A non-Senate-confirmed Justice showing up on the First Monday in October to start hearing cases would have provoked a constitutional crisis like no other - a month before the presidential election, no less. It would have been one hot mess, and not a good one for the Democrats.
Another problem with that approach is that it would have set a precedent for future Senates (including Democratically controlled ones dealing with a Republican president's nominees) that, unless the Senate actually held a hearing and voted on a nominee, the advise and consent right would be deemed to be waived and the nominee would be sworn and seated. The Senate often kills nominations by not acting on them, thereby resulting in either the president or the nominee withdrawing the nomination - although it had never happened with a Supreme Court nominee.
If that ability is taken away, it removes an important power the Senate has to encourage a president consult with them in advance on nominations or to force a president to withdraw a nominee and submit someone more acceptable to the body.
This was all extremely complicated and although I think the Senate explored every possible option, there was no option that would have guaranteed success (and that wouldn't have been harshly criticized if they had tried it and failed).