OK, here's a hypothetical for you and everyone else: Let's say (1) Trump gets elected president, (2) the Democrats take back the Senate, and (3) Ginsburg dies on his first day in office. Would the Democrats in the Senate be acting appropriately and fulfilling their duty if they say, "Nope, we consider Trump an ideologue and a charlatan, so we're not going to consider any Supreme Court nominee he offers. We'll just wait until the next President arrives in 2020 to replace Ginsburg." Justifiable in your worldview?

FWIW, you could easily flip that hypothetical too: Would a Republican Senate in 2017 be justified in refusing to consider any Hillary Clinton nominations for her entire four-year term?

I know the current line Republicans are drawing is just the third year of a President's term, but there's not reason it cannot be extended: Second half of a President's term? Entire President's term? What's the difference?

Anonymous wrote:On another note, I saw Garland in two of Shakespeare Theatre's Mock Trials along with Ginsburg and Breyer and he was pretty funny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Senate can block a nomination for as long as they wish: if it acts in a reckless way the price to be paid would be at the next election where those blocking the confirmation of ANY candidate might have to pay a price - assuming the electorate is disgusted with the behavior.

Blocking any nomination endlessly is indefensible but the price to be exacted would be by the voters.

With regard to the Garland nomination, that is the risk the Republicans face with senate seats that are potentially in play - and they are aware of it.

Yes they can try to block it. But these are the senate seats up for re-election in 2016:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP has yet to make these government shutdowns work. In the end this will fire up the millennials to show up in droves. The result is that Hillary will win, and maybe McConnell will lose the Senate since he has so many seats to defend this cycle.

My guess is that they back down by October.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get not letting the process go forward- the Republicans have a majority, they can just vote him down. What's the point in making a circus out of it?

Anonymous wrote:Just read an article about Garland's daughters. Both went to Sidwell and then Yale ... natch.

Anonymous wrote:

The Senate can block a nomination for as long as they wish: if it acts in a reckless way the price to be paid would be at the next election where those blocking the confirmation of ANY candidate might have to pay a price - assuming the electorate is disgusted with the behavior.

Blocking any nomination endlessly is indefensible but the price to be exacted would be by the voters.

With regard to the Garland nomination, that is the risk the Republicans face with senate seats that are potentially in play - and they are aware of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

But it was all hot air with schumer- both nominations went through. I think it's ridiculous to hold up the process for an entire year.