Why Mitch McConnell Should Eliminate The Judicial Filibuster

[Geee]

The Federalist:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has won plaudits for successfully executing the #NoHearingsNoVotes plan on the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. It was a risky political maneuver: there was no guarantee that the GOP caucus would hold together, as left-wing activists and the media (but I repeat myself) cried “obstruction.” But the move paid off once Hillary Clinton lost the election.

 

Perhaps even more impressively, the gutsy stance didn’t prevent Republicans from maintaining their Senate majority, essentially fighting the Democrats to a draw on unfavorable terrain. The highly targeted Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) won his own reelection by nearly 25 points, taking all but one of his state’s 99 counties.

 

But what’s next? Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has already threatened to filibuster any nominees if they’re not “mainstream.” Who knows if any of the stellar group of geographically and educationally diverse jurists (plus Utah Senator Mike Lee) on President-Elect Donald Trump’s list pass Schumer’s test, but both Trump and McConnell should ignore that posturing.

 

The Strangeness of Judicial Filibusters

 

While it’s senators’ prerogative to vote against any nominee they think would be bad for the country—I previously argued that Republicans should vote against essentially all judges Hillary Clinton names—judicial filibusters have always struck me as strange and sordid. Until Democrats began a systematic blockade of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in 2003 (most notoriously Miguel Estrada, because of his ethnicity), the only judicial filibuster was the bipartisan opposition to Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to elevate Abe Fortas to chief justice in 1968.

[Draggingtree]

What Does it Mean To Be "Mainstream"?

0 Views

12/02/2016 Gary Galles

Antonin Scalia’s death reignited a long-running battle over the Supreme Court. Trump’s victory escalated it. Now unexpectedly on defense, Democrats are demanding any Trump nominee be what they consider “mainstream.”

 

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has long led the mainstream mendacity. In 2007, he said any Bush nominee “must prove … they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.” Subsequent Democratic nominees, however, were simply defined as mainstream. Now he has switched course again, preemptively asserting any Trump nominee who fails to get Schumer’s imprimatur as mainstream could even merit consideration.

 

Why the mainstream rhetoric? To be in the mainstream sounds good; to be out of it sounds bad. But it rests on a distorting analogy.

 

The analogy equates mainstream to “normal” or current majority views, which are then further equated to “correct” views. But in choosing justices, whose primary role is preserving the Constitution against majority abuses, that equation fails. To recognize that, one need only remember the political choices the Constitution stringently restricted (particularly changing the Constitution), and the Bill of Rights put off-limits, to defend liberty against government encroachment. https://mises.org/blog/what-does-it-mean-be-mainstream

[Draggingtree]

:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has won plaudits for successfully executing the #NoHearingsNoVotes plan on the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. It was a risky political maneuver: there was no guarantee that the GOP caucus would hold together, as left-wing activists and the media (but I repeat myself) cried “obstruction.” But the move paid off once Hillary Clinton lost the election.

 

Perhaps even more impressively, the gutsy stance didn’t prevent Republicans from maintaining their Senate majority, essentially fighting the Democrats to a draw on unfavorable terrain. The highly targeted Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) won his own reelection by nearly 25 points, taking all but one of his state’s 99 counties.

 

But what’s next? Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has already threatened to filibuster any nominees if they’re not “mainstream.” Who knows if any of the stellar group of geographically and educationally diverse jurists (plus Utah Senator Mike Lee) on President-Elect Donald Trump’s list pass Schumer’s test, but both Trump and McConnell should ignore that posturing.

 

The Strangeness of Judicial Filibusters

 

While it’s senators’ prerogative to vote against any nominee they think would be bad for the country—I previously argued that Republicans should vote against essentially all judges Hillary Clinton names—judicial filibusters have always struck me as strange and sordid. Until Democrats began a systematic blockade of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in 2003 (most notoriously Miguel Estrada, because of his ethnicity), the only judicial filibuster was the bipartisan opposition to Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to elevate Abe Fortas to chief justice in 1968.

 

Why Mitch McConnell Should not Eliminate The Judicial Filibuster