Democrats used to hold the Republican party's stances and the Republican party used to hold the Democrat's. Saying that something was invented by Democrats is essentially saying it was invented by people who would agree with today's Republicans.
The point that I was making was about how traditions and accepted practices govern (no pun intended) how government is run. If one party opens up the option of blocking recess appointments (by having the Senate continuously open), then they can't complain when the opposition does the same.
On the flip side, I expect to see a lot of the reverse as well with large numbers of Democrats refusing to act on or otherwise stalling legislation as retribution for how Republicans have acted the past few years. We're in for a fun ride.
I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.
Not that I intend the conversation to devolved into "but the Democrats did..." and vice versa, but the only thing unique for Garland is the delay at that exact position.
Priscilla Owen was denied a vote for an entire presidential term[1].
No, Garland's situation is unique because no one has pulled this nonsense with the Supreme Court, regardless of how close to the election it was. Tit for tat politicking is usually reserved for the lower courts and Democrats were far more accomodating to Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court.
Priscilla Owen was retribution because the Republican senate refused to fill Garwood's seat during Clinton's second term (obstruction that lasted just as long as Owens, 97-01) and she was viewed as too conservative (contrary to what the the Frontpage Mag article says). They're not even in the same ballpark.
That seems to be the rule. Whatever past government set a lower standard, the new government can take that as useful approved governing tool.
Really people wonder why politician sometimes fight for nonsensical minor tweaks that look like a waste a taxpayer money, but that's exactly it. Most of the government way of working is ruled by tradition rather than law and new laws are created in case of abuse.
After a few cycle of those little games affecting both big parties, they will most likely get tired of it and vote a law that prevent that to ever happen again.
Exactly my point. A "nuclear" level of the same standoff is regarding changing cloture rules. The party in power can do it as a rule change (which can't be filibustered) but nobody has done so till now because they don't want to not be in power when that goes in effect.
Amusingly enough now I am the one to tell you that Harry Reid did in fact do this in 2013, albeit for lower-court appointments. So I guess it was more of a tactical nuke than a strategic one, but that may well be cited as precedent next month. I think there's a high likelihood of the Senate doing exactly that at the beginning of the next term or soon after.
Yep, and I expect the democrats to give Trump the hell that the republicans have given Obama, especially if they get back congress in 2018. There is no room for niceties anymore.
Thankfully, the Republicans have been laying out the battle plans of obstruction for two decades. Already there are a bunch of state Attorney Generals frothing at the mouth to sue the Trump administration to stop everything from nominees due to conflict of interest to blocking deregulation and neutering Department secretaries, the same tactics used by Republicans to obstruct all manners of policy.
It's four more years of the same just with slightly different players and the Democrats already know what to do.
http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switc...
http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parti...
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-t...