3460

By the intent of the drafters of the constitution, as interpreted by our government for its entire history leading up until the past few decades.

The power to select the president was intended for the President, with Congress meant to be a check on that selection, not an equal participant in the selection.

And this is how it has always worked, until recently.

Hyper partisanship essentially breaks our system of government.

3461

Here’s how Hamilton saw it:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

On the other hand, he also gave this reason for vesting the power of nomination solely with the President:

Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable.
. . .
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them.

If Hamilton were here today, I would just point to a picture of Trump, at which point he would simply start weeping and tear The Federalist to shreds.

Exhibit: Samuel Chase

From his articles of impeachment:

The said Samuel Chase, disregarding the duties and dignity of his judicial character, did, at a circuit court, for the District of Maryland, held in Baltimore, in the month of May, 1803, pervert his official right and duty to address the grand jury then and there assembled, on the matters coming within the province of the said jury, for the purpose of delivering to the said grand jury an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with intent to excite the fears and resentment of the grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland against their state government, and constitution, a conduct highly censurable in any, but peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. … And … that the said Samuel Chase … did, in a manner highly unwarrantable, endeavor to excite the odium of the said grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against the government of the United States, by delivering opinions which … were at that time and as delivered by him, highly indecent, extra-judicial, intending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan.

Chase was acquitted on all 8 articles brought against him, but partisanship in the judiciary, its selection and its disposition, is not new.

3462

Yeah, from Hamilton’s perspective, it’s possible that Kavanaugh would be considered unfit as his appointment might be considered as stemming from personal attachment regarding preference for his judicial views about executive power which would directly impact future cases against Trump.

But for the most part, the Senate’s just supposed to stop the President from saying, “Hah, I’m gonna make my family into SCOTUS justices!” and overtly bullshit crap like that.

3463

Anyone who is an originalist or anyone submitted from a list from the Federalist society, I would vote no. That doesn’t automatically exclude a conservative judge.

3464

In theory, yes, but it never comes to that. Democrats properly rejected Bork, and then Reagan nominated Ginsburg who withdrew, and then Reagan nominated Kennedy. Kennedy was not the ideologue that Bork was, and as a result he was confirmed by a vote of 97-0.

That is IMO the entire point of advice and consent: To prevent extremists from reaching the bench. And in the modern era, it is Republicans, not Democrats, who nominate extremists. Democrats should reject them and force Republican Presidents to move closer to the middle.

3465

I don’t mind the concept of the Senate having power over the President’s choice, as they’re elected officials just the same and the voters ostensibly have this power in mind when at the ballot box. Whether they vote for ideological reasons or just purely based on simple qualifications, whatevs. In that respect, we get what we voted for.

What I do mind is the role of the Judiciary Committee in being able to prevent the choice from coming to a full vote. This seems like a way to steal such a vote away from 79 other senators and their constituents and make certain such a decision will be as partisan as possible. Such a committee makes sense to me in a “back in the day” sort of way, where senators would have to get in their horse and carriage to take care of business, but it just doesn’t make sense in the here and now.

3466

Do you feel the same about all the other committees in the Senate, or just this one?

3467

Some, but not all. For any sensitive or classified information, keeping the circle small makes total sense. I’d argue that for some of the more arcane things they have to deal with, using a pool of experts might also make sense. If there’s a very busy type of issue, having a triage also can be helpful.

3468

Fair enough. It just feels like to much is going on, and the wider the net, the more grandstanding everyone does.

It’s easier to negotiate and make deals in small groups. I think more gets done, and as long as all sides are represented, it works better.

I think most representatives of both Chambers only care about a few topics anyway.

3469

Actually, the committee doesn’t really control whether it comes up to a full vote. That’s entirely up to the majority leader. The majority leader can put it to a floor vote no matter what the committee does or doesn’t do.

3470

In that case, I’ll amend my complaint to minding the role of the majority leader (and therefore potentially disenfranchising 99 senators).

3471

It has always struck me as a bit crazy that a chamber can be 51-49, and the majority gets complete control over what even gets voted on. Shouldn’t the minority be able to bring some issues to the floor? Force a vote, get people on the record and maybe even see an occasional defection or two. My understanding is that there are many measures that would have passed, but didn’t have the support of the “majority of the majority” (also known as a minority). Seems undemocratic.

3472

I agree, wholeheartedly.

3473
3474

Especially when those 51 senators represent less than 44% of Americans.

3475


3476

At least with that you could make the argument that smaller states having equal representation was part of the original design. I don’t think the founders envisioned the minority 49 Senators having no control over the Senate process. The more disciplined the parties get, the less functional the design becomes.

3477

The founders didn’t build the system around the idea of political parties. It wasn’t expected that the government would just be a tug of war between two major powers.

The idea was that all those different elected officials would be representing their states, and there wouldn’t really be a situation where states’ desires would be split down the middle into two polar positions.

The checks and balances in the constitution are meant to be enacted between the different branches of government, not between two parties fighting all the time.

3478

So courageous.

3479

Yeah, and one thing to keep in mind is the powers of the Majority Leader of the Senate aren’t enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. It’s a 20th century innovation