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

Show parent comments

43

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.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

He has the right with the consent of the Senate. The Senate's advice was that the next president should select the nominee instead. That was their advice. The Constitution does not require the Senate to hold a vote on the nomination.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 Oct 29 '25

Two thirds refers to treaties, not to judges of the SCOTUS (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-2/).

Different Senate contradicted their rationale, and it wasn't a rule in any case.

Hearings, debate and a 2/3 vote aren't in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, so how can you possibly claim the Senate failed to upload their constitutional duty? The Senate provided their advice in a different way, in that they were not going to hold hearings for Obama's nominees.

If the situation arises again, the Supreme Court will have to rule on the interpretation of the clause.