There's an argument that's become en vogue since polarization between the parties has escalated over the last decade or so. The argument is that this polarization has led to the parties playing "constitutional hardball." The gist is that the parties in government have taken ever more creative interpretations of the constitution to justify obstructing or circumventing the other. These interpretations aren't necessarily incorrect or unjustifiable, but exist well outside of tradition and constitutional norms.

 

What's going on here is an example of this. Senate Republicans are outright refusing a hearing on Obama's nominee, which is not unconstitutional, but exists outside of the norms of how the body has traditionally functioned. What the author in the OP argues is similarly hardball. Obama declaring that the Senate has waived its right to consent by refusing hearings is a plausible interpretation of the constitution, but it is well outside the norms of how the process is supposed to work.

 

I hope that Obama doesn't pursue such a gambit because I'm afraid hardball is becoming the new normal. I think it's eventually going to lead to a serious constitutional crisis and ratcheting up the stakes right now would only hasten it. But, something is going to give soon.

 

Absolutely correct on the hardball issue. I think both sides have played and are playing it.

 

Harry Reid started by not allowing votes to come to the floor and by going nuclear on some POTUS appointments. Now the Left seems shocked when the Repubs are playing the same games.

 

It's time for the Senate and the POTUS to do the jobs the Constitution enables them to do. Quit being a bunch of whiny kids and do what you were elected to do. Obama doesn't and the Senate doesn't. Pretty sad if you ask me.

There's an argument that's become en vogue since polarization between the parties has escalated over the last decade or so. The argument is that this polarization has led to the parties playing "constitutional hardball." The gist is that the parties in government have taken ever more creative interpretations of the constitution to justify obstructing or circumventing the other. These interpretations aren't necessarily incorrect or unjustifiable, but exist well outside of tradition and constitutional norms.

 

What's going on here is an example of this. Senate Republicans are outright refusing a hearing on Obama's nominee, which is not unconstitutional, but exists outside of the norms of how the body has traditionally functioned. What the author in the OP argues is similarly hardball. Obama declaring that the Senate has waived its right to consent by refusing hearings is a plausible interpretation of the constitution, but it is well outside the norms of how the process is supposed to work.

 

I hope that Obama doesn't pursue such a gambit because I'm afraid hardball is becoming the new normal. I think it's eventually going to lead to a serious constitutional crisis and ratcheting up the stakes right now would only hasten it. But, something is going to give soon.

 

Except what he proposes has been tried and turned down under law. What the GOP is doing has historical presidence. Sure Obama could appoint in recess but under the law if the Senate comes back and votes against he has to leave the bench. Historical fact and legal fact.