Unanimous consent is NOT good. Means nominee is unpredictable and manipulable to vote Left. We’ve seen this with some of Bush’s nominees, And of course, we saw how Reagan’s Justice Kennedy wrote the deciding opinion on gay marriage and abortion.
Michael Scudder, one of the two Illinois nominees, actually clerked for Kennedy.
Re: “Unanimous consent is NOT good.”
I agree.
The Always-Trumpers claim that these unanimous votes are a “tradition” when the opposing side does not have enough votes to reject the nominee.
That is incorrect.
In 2017, Trump was nominating judges without consulting the Senators, and many of his nominees had significant opposition.
In 2018, Trump started consulting the Senators, and almost all his nominees are sailing through with little or no opposition at all.
No it doesn’t. It means that the Senators are expected to vote for Senators of different States, like they do for theirs.
Could also be in resignation as a done deal and why not be able to say “I voted for President Trump’s _________ “(Fill in the blank) in the future when other issues are at hand?
Exactly. I’d feel much better if the Democrats were kicking and screaming and these two along with all other Trump appointees were rammed down their throats. Then I could feel confident they really were strict constructionists.
Generally not. However, with the Senate recently confirming a nominee despite no "blue skip", the Democrats may have felt that it was better to concede on some of these rather than risk the complete elimination of blue slip holds.
In other words, they may have given consent in these cases to try to preserve the idea that their consent still matters. Better than fighting the same battle and losing again.
Steelfish:
A little background. I am in my 50’s and remember the Reagan era. The first 6 years, the Republicans controlled the Senate (January 1981 to January 1987). The Democrats controlled the Senate from then on. Kennedy was nominated to replace Justice Powell who was a Nixon appointee and was more Conservative the most of the Warren and Burger courts but seen as someone who as similar to Kennedy. So when Reagan nominated Kennedy, I think he was the 3rd nominee and the one that could get enough Dems to confirm (he was confirmed early in 1988). One of them was Judge Robert Bork. So in hindsight, better to get a Reagan Kennedy that a George Bush Judge Sutter, who of course waited to retire when Obama was president and Judge Sotomayer was his replacement.
So in total, Kennedy moved the court away from the Warren and Burger activist domination of previous years. Hopefully, he will retire with Trump in office and Trump can nominate his replacement.
Unanimous consent is NOT good. Means nominee is unpredictable and manipulable to vote Left. We’ve seen this with some of Bush’s nominees, And of course, we saw how Reagan’s Justice Kennedy wrote the deciding opinion on gay marriage and abortion.””
Exactly and with prejudice.