Let me just start by saying that this is obviously not for and about the likes of Mitch McConnell and all the other Republicans who don’t care about the rules, norms, or any sense of constituency.
This is in case you find yourself with anyone repeating this nonsense, whether it’s because they think it’s accurate or they just heard “some people” saying it.
What I’m talking about is this-
So, let’s breakdown this nonsense.
If you read the article, the author immediately discounts Anthony Kennedy in 1988 (Reagan appointee confirmed by the Democratic Senate in Feb. 1988- election year) because he was the end result of a process that started in 1987 with Robert Bork. Oh, that’s nice.
He then produces this chart to show that what happened to Obama- president from one party puts forward SCOTUS nominee in election, Senate with majority from other party refuses to confirm- is completely “normal”-
Gee, anything stand out there? Maybe it’s the fact that most of them occurred before the Civil War, only 2 since 1900, and just once in 64 years. Other than that, business as usual.
But there is a larger argument to be had with this nonsense.
The President is the one office that everyone gets to vote for. In that regard, they are the person that selects SCOTUS nominees. With the Senate as a check to confirm.
So far, so good.
But if the “new rule” is that you can’t count on the president getting even a vote, let alone a seating, of their SCOTUS choice unless the Senate majority is the same party as the White House...if that is the “argument” here...then you have invalidated the notion that your vote for president is how you have a say in the SCOTUS process.
You are saying that it’s not enough to have your choice- like Obama- win the presidency. You need to have enough other people vote to have Senators from the same party in the majority.
And I think we all know how the Senate inflates the vote of rural voters in empty states at the expense of urban ones in more populated ones. (Feel free to read into that even further: “rural” = white, “urban” = non-white and liberal)
(Again, we know that craven right wingers like this: this isn’t about them. This is about anyone else falling for this)
This is to hose down any and all rationalizations, like “Well, gee, the GOP does run the Senate” or “The Senate doesn’t HAVE to have a vote on any nominee: it only says ‘advise and consent’” or “Both sides do it” or the all time favorite, “Well, that’s just the way it is”.
The right wing is happy to set up any obstacle to what the majority of voters want. It’s not just a matter of all of us fighting them. We also have to get the wishy-washy moderates and apolitical types onboard here. There is no “both sides do it” here. No lazy fatalism- “What are you going to do?”- allowed.
There can not be one set of rules for one side, and another set for the other.