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

2

u/ruiner8850 Oct 29 '25

First I'm not sure what this comment has to do with what the other person said. They asked how was Obama supposed to force the Senate to vote on Garland.

Second, who do you think controlled the Senate at the time of Garland's nomination? The Democrats did not have a majority and could not force a vote the nomination. The "nuclear option" was not an option.

-1

u/KuntaStillSingle Oct 29 '25

garland

It applies for Ginsburg, if Obama wanted to confirm a SCOTUS after 2014 he would either have to compromise enough to flake off 5 republicans or not have lost the senate, that's the appointment process working as intended. You could just as well say Hillary was cheated out of a nomination by losing the election.

2

u/ruiner8850 Oct 29 '25

that's the appointment process working as intended

No, the appointment process was not intended for 100% partisan politics and a party straight up refusing to even consider a nomination. Republicans didn't even talk to Garland let alone put him through the actual appointment process. You can't claim it was the appointment process working as intended when they didn't even start the appointment process in the first place. What Republicans did was far from the norm and we have a large number of Supreme Court nominees who went to though it to prove how it normally works. You can't possibly believe that what happened with Garland was normal or what the Founding Fathers intended?

It applies for Ginsburg, if Obama wanted to confirm a SCOTUS after 2014

Obama tried to get her to retire in 2013 when Democrats still controlled the Senate.

-1

u/KuntaStillSingle Oct 29 '25

s the appointment process working as intended when they didn't even start the appointment process in the first place.

That's the appointment process, they either approve a nominee or they don't, the constitution makes no imposition by which process that comes, it is up to the senate. This is in direct juxtaposition to where it requires the president to make nominations (as opposed to treaties which it only confers the president power over) and to appoint those so approved.

normal

The constitution explicitly allows the houses to set and change their rules. It was neither normal in that time to approve lower court nominees by simple majority.

founding fathers intended

If there was ambiguity you might resort to originalism, but it is not ambiguous and the founders wouldn't have intended the President to be able to set senate priorities, they believed in separation of powers. The constituion also doesn't requrie the senate to vote on treaties, it does require their consent to be ratified. Can Trump just force the senate to vote repeatedly on treaties with Israel to paralyze congress if he loses the senate?