I certainly understand people looking for ways around the Senate. But I strongly oppose upending 200 years of constitutional understanding. I also think this would be a political loser, a la the court-packing plan.
Yes, this is dumb and could come back to bite them as soon as 2019-20. If Justice Ginsburg had just died under President Romney and a Democratic senate, I think most people on this forum would be encouraging the senate to do almost exactly what it's doing now. And if not to reject any Romney nominee, period, then to only accept a known pro-choice, anti-money = speech nominee. Garland is a fine guy, but he clearly isn't the reverse of that. Obama should have offered someone clearly right of Kennedy if he wanted to fill this seat before the election.
No, that is a crazy idea. He shouldn't have to give in and nominate someone clearly to the right of Kennedy. He's still the President, and he still has some prerogative in the matter. The obstruction here is unprecedented.
