"It is anti-democratic for a democratically elected body to choose not to confirm a Supreme Court justice."

It's even more nonsensical than that, because McConnell is specifically making this promise to drum up voter support so that he can win a democratic election.

Yes, I believe McConnell turning the Supreme Court nomination/confirmation process into a completely partisan enterprise is anti-democratic. If presidents only get their Supreme Court picks when their own party controls the Senate, the process is less democratic and all institutions lose legitimacy.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 15 2021 02:59pm

It is more democratic, because the voters have the opportunity to punish McConnell, if they disagree, and provide Biden with the votes he needs to confirm whoever he wants. You're suggesting that the Senate should ignore the will of the voters who put them into office and support the President's candidate.

And you are misunderstanding McConnell's position. He is not saying that the opposition should never confirm a Supreme Court justice, but rather they shouldn't if they are in the lame duck period where the voters have specifically stripped the President's party of the authority to push a candidate through.

You are full of shit lol. McConnel is playing power politics. Full stop. He doesn't have a deeper ideological justification. You are adding that on the back end to justify it.

If every semblance of bipartisanship is thrown away in favor of pure power politics, our politics gets worse, and the people's choice means less and less. I don't care who is president, qualified Supreme Court picks should be confirmed, regardless of who controls the Senate.

And this isn't even considering how the Senate is structurally an anti-democratic institution, as Democrats represent millions of more voters than Republicans, and the filibuster exists.

This is a good point. If confirmations passing the senate should be contingent on the realignment every 2 years regardless of qualification, then the filibuster cannot be a legitimate part of the senate since it means losing parties still get to obstruct and it takes away voters opportunity to change course.

The "people" in this case are literally voting Republican so as to empower the Republican Senate to have a voice in deciding Supreme Court appointments. You may certainly disagree with them, but in what world is this not exactly what they want?

The Senate, by design, protects the interests of the minority. It goes without saying that just because something is "more" democratic does not necessarily make it better. If we truly felt that way, we'd vote as a collective on every decision.



I am providing the explanation which McConnell gave, and which Icemage misinterpreted.

Let's not kid ourselves: McConnell would never think about playing hardball like that if the GOP didn't have a massive structural advantage in the chamber responsible for confirming judicial nominations.

The GOP stumbled into structural advantages based on the coalitional realignment spurred by Trump (the candidate the party establishment hated so much and fought so vehemently before he took over the party), and now they're trying to run with these advantages.

I agree with the idea of not confirming judicial nominations shortly before an election when the previous election resulted in split control of government, but stretching this notion of a "lame duck" period to up to 2 years goes way too far.

I don't believe 100% of the people voting for Republicans in the Senate would agree with the proposition "if the opposition party controls the Senate, the president does not get their Supreme Court pick". So the "people" who do think that are a minority, regardless of whether Republicans manage to control the Senate.

Is there any precedent for a president having their Supreme Court pick blocked for a full term? What happens to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court when Democratic presidents don't get Supreme Court picks because Republicans have a structural advantage in the Senate, and any semblance of bipartisanship has ended? It's kind of mind boggling that a "conservative" would support such a break with the traditions and norms of American politics.... sounds more like a radical leftist position.

Of course, that's what the right has turned into. All that matters is pure power politics... principles are long gone.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 16 2021 05:38am