Political Fairness? Should the Dems. block the senate Gorsuch vote?
Democrats threaten to filibuster Judge Gorsuch's vote for Scalia's (deceased) empty SCOTUS seat.
Scalia died about 7 years into the Obama administration.
In accordance with the U.S. Constitution President Obama chose a nominee to succeed Scalia.
Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) refused even to allow Obama's (D-IL) nominee to be voted on in the senate, leaving SCOTUS a potentially deadlocked 8 person court.
McConnell blocked Obama's nominee, without significant objection from the GOP.
Now the shoe is on the other foot.
It's the Republicans that have a nominee.
Due to current senate rules, approval of the nominee requires a "super-majority", 60 senate votes or more.
And reportedly Majority Leader McConnell doesn't now have them.
On FNS M.L. McConnell said he plans to attend to the Gorsuch nomination this week.
With the legislative resources at his disposal, President Trump's nominee Gorsuch will lose the vote, and not be confirmed.
McConnell retains "the nuclear option", the ability to change senate rules so that instead of a 60 vote approval, only a simple majority would be required.
And McConnell reportedly already has more than enough votes for that.
When McConnell was the minority leader, the Democrats had an opportunity to exercise "the nuclear option". But Minority Leader McConnell talked them out of it.
I just did a character string search of the amended United States Constitution. Neither the word "fairness" nor "fair" appear anywhere in it.
"Politics is the art of compromise."
Is there any rational reason to assume that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" applies in general, but there's an exception for U.S. senate SCOTUS appointee confirmations?
The United States Constitution specifies that it is the U.S. senate that is to confirm presidential appointees.
Some Democrats complained McConnell was failing his sworn duty to the Constitution, by blocking the vote.
It's a fair point. According to the Constitution it is the U.S. senate and no other body that has this enumerated duty.
The Constitution does not specify a time-limit.
So with that loop-hole, McConnell was within his legal right. And the Dems. just whiners.
In addition, there's reportedly no Constitutional requirement for a 9 member SCOTUS.
So McConnell could leave the SCOTUS count at 8, or even let its population dwindle further, by attrition *.
The Republicans blocked President Obama's SCOTUS appointment.
Is there any rational reason to assert that if this is the way the Republicans treat the Democrats,
that the Democrats shouldn't do the same to the Republicans, and block the GOP nominee to SCOTUS as well?
If not, why not?
And if the Dems try, should McConnell use the nuclear option?
And if he does, is there any rational reason in ethical equity or law that the Dems. should not use that same strategy against the Republicans when the roles are reversed?
* They are lifetime appointments. So McConnell lacks the authority to fire them; except via the path of impeachment. So attrition would be the obvious means to depopulate SCOTUS.