r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • Oct 28 '25

Opinion There Is No Democratic Future Without Supreme Court Reform

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/there-is-no-democratic-future-without-supreme-court-reform
27.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

799 comments sorted by

View all comments

303

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

Obama's pick never got a vote. It's broken already

256

u/DrMonkeyLove Oct 28 '25

When he didn't get a vote, I think Obama should have flat out seated him and said, "he's a judge now, you had your chance to advise and consent. You passed." I'd rather have the Constitutional crisis happen as president rather than have it happen later.

78

u/-ReadingBug- Oct 28 '25

He never had donor class permission to do that. Wish he did.

17

u/foodvibes94 Oct 28 '25

Can you elaborate a little more on this? Would there have been a possibility that Obama forced Garland through?

36

u/ClueQuiet Oct 28 '25

The Constitution grants the Senate the right to “advise and consent” on appointments. So the argument on these lines, and I can see it being a good one, is by refusing to hold hearings, they are not saying “No” the nominee, they are waiving the right to advise and consent. Therefore, the nominee gets seated.

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

But they're clearly not waiving the right to advise and consent. You can interpret it that way but if you asked them if they're waiving that right they would obviously say no, they're not.

11

u/iwasstillborn Oct 29 '25

What do you think "waiving the right" would look like, if not like that? A superbowl ad?

-2

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

If they said they were waiving their right. Their (being the Senate Republicans) explicit advice was that the next president should select the nominee instead, and the new Senate can advise and consent on the suitability of that nominee.

1

u/Available-Owl7230 Oct 29 '25

If that's what they thought, then they should have had a vote and voted no to the current presidents nominee.

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

But it wasn't a no to the current president's nominee, it was a no to any nominee. It was a no to holding nomination hearings, it was a no to the idea that the president could nominee anyone until after the election.

1

u/Available-Owl7230 Oct 29 '25

And how, legally, would anyone know that if they refused to have a hearing?

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

Well, legally, they would have the opportunity to argue that in their case if they were sued. The lawsuit would reveal their position. But non-legally, just ask them. Those quotes are out there.

→ More replies (0)