There are two standards then: * the Amy Coney Barrett standard where the process can not be fast enough * the Merrick Garland standard where the process never starts As an aside, I hope the next time the Senate majority leader pulls the Merrick Garland stunt the POTUS attacks back. The Senate should not be able to abdicate its responsibility of advise and consent. Doing so should allow the POTUS to assume consent. For example, the Senate shod be able to hod an up or down vote on a judicial nominee with in 100 days. If not, the assumption should be consent.
That does work with other appointments where you can make recess appointments. It doesn't work with the USSC Senate rules and like the filibuster will likely take a change in Senate rules to get that. Obviously the Republicans will have no interest in doing that and now that McConnell has done this Democrats might not either if they want to have the same power when there is a Republican President. This is again why control of the Senate is almost as important as winning the Presidency.
Leondra Kruger is the youngest and most physically fit of the choices as far as I can tell. Confirm her on Friday, May 13th. Edit: That would be a better date for Judge Angela Vorhees, but she’s too old.
Althouse: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/white-people-and-men-have-always-been.html the Thurgood Marshall clip is worth looking at, cued up at 2:30
lots of folks suggesting the Republicans will sit this one out, not give the Dems fuel for 2022. Whoever is nominated, if qualified, should sail through pretty easily
They are 6-3 even if they did roll over. If they wanted to be mean, maybe they'll spike some landmark abortion decree just to signal who's boss.
Garland seems to be Kamala Harris-level mediocre. I think that's what Astrodome means on edit: even Sotomayoresque
I respect what you have to say and like to read your post, but this just comes off as being miserable for the sake of being miserable. Chill out my guy. If Manchin and Sinema block this in any way, they will lose their seats, they will no longer get any Democratic support and will not have enough support from republicans. I don't see the upside for them doing it.
detailed assessment: Handicapping President Biden's Supreme Court Shortlist Here are my odds on the leading contenders—and some interesting historical analysis. https://davidlat.substack.com/p/handicapping-president-bidens-supreme
Agreed. Even if the plan is to pick an African American at least make it sound like you're considering candidates from different races so it doesn't seem like a handout.
I know right.... Democrats are so thankful we got Neil (non mask wearer) Gorsuch instead of Garland. Makes total sense.
