Won't there be another recess at the end of the year? Or do you mean that by then, they will be ready to gavel in a session to prevent the appointment?
There are excellent reasons to suspect that this is not true.It just doesn't seem smart from any angle as having a SC seat dependent on who wins an election would be the #1 way to get reluctant democrats to the polling booths
So looks like that seat will be vacant for the next 5 years, assuming Hillary wins the election. Yeah![]()
The best way for Prez Obama and the Democrats to work the long game is for Prez Obama to recess appoint a SCOTUS Justice, and then all the Democrats rally behind:Gotta work the long game.
For the next most of a year we have Republicans chanting "Wait for the next president! Let the people have their say!" The people are divided into three groups. People who are just pure Republicans, people who see some sort of sense in this, and people who see this as just plain obstructionism. So the next president is a Democrat...that is a very high probability. The obstructionism helps democrats in senate races...that is a very high probability. If it helps enough, problem solved, but that isn't a high probability, and there will certainly be enough Republicans to continue stonewalling by filibuster, if nothing else.
So, two more years, and now the people still have the just plain Republicans group and the group that sees outright obstructionism. But that group that saw some sort of sense in "wait for the next president, let the people have their say" now has a vastly different point to look from, in that the people who were saying "wait" are suddenly saying "oh, we meant wait for the next REPUBLICAN president and we don't give a damn WHAT the people said."
That makes the next midterm election a very dicey prospect for the Republicans, so I doubt they would be so stupid as to stonewall for two additional years. We can hope though, since their penchant for destroying themselves is starting to run rampant.
The best way for Prez Obama and the Democrats to work the long game is for Prez Obama to recess appoint a SCOTUS Justice, and then all the Democrats rally behind:
"Let the people have their say! Wait until the NEW SENATE is sworn in to hold the confirmation hearings. If the new Senate votes the Justice out, then the new Prez can nominate someone else." Everybody gets what they want. Prez gets to appoint, the current Senate gets to refuse to confirm, and "the people get their say"...
Win, win, win.
Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...Except that we both know that would play directly into the "out of control madman overusing executive privilege" narrative. The objective is to strengthen the "obstructionist Republican" narrative, not help them out.
So looks like that seat will be vacant for the next 5 years, assuming Hillary wins the election. Yeah![]()
There are excellent reasons to suspect that this is not true.
Gotta work the long game.
Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...
I'd just as soon go ahead and get the SCOTUS Justice in place. To me that actually puts more pressure on the Republicans to actually hold confirmation hearings, since crossing their arms and holding their breath will just result in Prez Obama's appointee staying in office.
Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...
You did specify that, and I agree with you. But I'm not sure that the "let the people have their say makes sense" group is going to then forget about all the other reasons they are Republican and become Democrats just because the Republicans get exposed as being pure obstructionist on the SCOTUS issue.Notice that I did not suggest anywhere that the "just plain Republicans" group was subject to change. The "well, maybe waiting makes sense and isn't just obstructionist" group is the group that is subject to influence...either way.
Indeed. I have to admit, it sometimes seems that US politics has more of these situations, where things just stop working because the different parties are gaming the system, than British politics. I suspect that's a necessary evil you have to take with the whole idea of limited executive power.
You did specify that, and I agree with you. But I'm not sure that the "let the people have their say makes sense" group is going to then forget about all the other reasons they are Republican and become Democrats just because the Republicans get exposed as being pure obstructionist on the SCOTUS issue.
In fact they may just adopt the new spin... which will be "The people had their say and saw fit to let Republicans keep their Senate majority (or filibuster-able +40), so clearly the people don't want a Democratic nominated SCOTUS Justice, so the obstruction will continue."