Sure. I’ll stick with the period I know. When Harrison nominated Howell Jackson, he picked a Dem that would have to meet muster with the Dem Senate. Without opposite Party consent, he would have not been successful. N.b. Harrison was part of the dominant coalition of the era.https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1285989271283748864 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @AnthonyMKreis
Also, bear in mind that Jackson was Harrison's *second* nomination of 1892-93. Shiras was not a Democrat.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I think the objection is fundamentally that it is anti-majoritarian to use the appointment power in a 1.5 month span to confirm a nominee directly at odds with an election results. The Jackson nod doesn’t really fit that. Harder question of what to do between November and March.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AnthonyMKreis
The Senate is within its rights - as a matter of rules & power - in doing whatever a majority wants. Historically, power is constrained by norms. Here, the historical norm when the branches are opposed is to run out the last year, but when they are united, it is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Well, I suspect you’re going to see a court packing movement that will look more like Radical Republicans than New Dealers if they do it. I don’t disagree— they can do whatever they want— but that, of course, isn’t what people are really debating I don’t think.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Democrats have been openly talking about that for a while anyway. The point is that historical precedent does not support either their complaints or their proposals.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.