Due to a lack of sincere attempted compromise and accommodation between the political parties in the U.S. Senate, a super majority necessary to avoid filibusters could not be assembled to confirm president Obama’s nominees.
Regrettably in 2013, senate majority leader Harry Ried led his Democratic Party to reduce the plurality required to confirm president’s nominated appointees. There’s no doubt that the need for such a rule change is a reduction of the U.S. Senate’s standards of decorum.
Although in recent years our supreme court has heard some politically controversial cases, the supreme court still retains its national reputation and status. With good reason the Democrats retained the senate super-plurality requirement to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court appointment.
In February 2016 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Since then senate majority leader McConnell led the Republican Party to prevent any President Obama nominee from even being voted upon within the U.S. Senate (while a Democratic president’s in office).
Under the present senate rules, it’s possible for Democrats to withhold a super majority from President Trump’s supreme court nominee.
I’m among those believing Democrats must try to withhold the super-plurality for any supreme court nominee until 2021 or until Senator McConnell apologizes on behalf of his party and lead the passage of his own senatorial censure for acting to undermine the reputation of the U.S. Senate.
Senator McConnell is not expected to comply but rather to lead Republicans to further extend the senate rule change to be additionally applicable for nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. That of course would be additionally more detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate.
The alternative of Democrats not attempting to block all President Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court would be to accept that no Democratic President should be able to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice unless Democrats at that time also hold 67 seats in the U.S. Senate.
Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/c...ve_process.htm :
A key goal of the framers was to create a Senate differently constituted from the House so it would be less subject to popular passions and impulses. "The use of the Senate," wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, "is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." An oft-quoted story about the "coolness" of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. "Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it”.]
