FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional

Photo by Aaron Vowels | CC BY 2.0

On Feb. 13, 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced what is now referred to as the “McConnell Rule”: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.”

Between mid-February 2016 and mid-January 2017, McConnell used this rule to deny Pres. Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, the opportunity to have confirmation hearings and a subsequent up-or-down vote in the Senate. But true to form, McConnell is now scheduling pre-election confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

In a previous op-ed in The Hill, I urged Senate Democrats to sue McConnell for violating their right to a fair and consistent exercise of Senate rules. My advice was based on the assumption that the majority party is just as legally bound to comply with the procedural rules it creates as is the minority party. And contrary to some objections I received, Art. I, sec. 5 does not contradict this assumption. Art. I, sec. 5 permits the majority to create the rules, but it does not permit them to abandon these rules whenever they wish.

The one big problem with my earlier position is that I did not go far enough. Yes, by applying the McConnell Rule only to Judge Garland and not to Judge Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans are being complete hypocrites and abusing their power. But even worse, the McConnell Rule is not constitutional, at least as it was applied to Judge Garland.

Again, McConnell’s own rationale for the McConnell Rule is that, when a SCOTUS vacancy opens up, the American people should decide who fills it. McConnell now insists that he is not violating the McConnell Rule. Rather, the McConnell Rule is simply inapplicable because Trump is not a “constitutionally lame-duck president.”

But the Constitution does not say any of this. In Art. II, Sec. 2, the Constitution does not grant to the American people per se the appointment power. Instead, Art. II, Sec. 2 grants this power to the President. And nowhere does it say that a President loses this power, or any other power, during his term if he cannot run for re-election.

By infringing on Pres. Obama’s Art. II, sec. 2 appointment power, McConnell and Senate Republicans blatantly violated the Constitution between mid-Feb. 2016 and Jan. 2017. Pres. Obama tried to exercise this power. He tried to nominate and appoint Judge Garland. But the appointment power is substantive, not merely formal. It requires not merely selection and announcement of a candidate but also a genuine opportunity for this candidate to be appointed, which means an up-or-down vote. Sadly, McConnell and Senate Republicans made sure that Judge Garland was never given this opportunity.

To be sure, Art. II, sec. 2 also grants the Senate the power to advise and consent. But given our constitutional framework of checks and balances, this power must be exercised compatibly with the President’s equally awesome appointment power. While the Senate may certainly vote down the President’s nominee, it exceeds their constitutional power to prevent the President’s nominee from even having an up-or-down vote in the first place.

As attorney Daniel S. Cohen eloquently states in his article “DO YOUR DUTY (!)(?): The Distribution of Power in the Appointments Clause,”103 Virginia Law Review 673, 673-74 (2017), “[T]he Founders’ intent, the Constitution’s text, the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, and long-standing Senate practice indicate that the appointment power is solely a presidential power. For Judge Garland, this conclusion means the Senate violated its duty to hold hearings and to provide an opportunity for a vote on his nomination. More importantly for the nation, it means that the Appointments Clause requires the Senate to apply to every nominee the process that it has designed for securing its consent.”

Importantly, nothing changes if we assume that the McConnell Rule is not really a rule in the first place. Assume, then, that the McConnell Rule was not really a rule but rather a naked, partisan attempt by McConnell and Senate Republicans to keep Justice Scalia’s seat in Republican hands. Assume also that McConnell merely called it a rule – the “Biden Rule” – in a thinly veiled attempt to create the appearance that he was acting in a principled manner by following supposedly established precedent.

Here’s the rub: If the McConnell Rule was not really a rule, if it was just a majority action, then it cannot possibly be justified by the rulemaking powers granted to the Senate in Art. I, sec. 5. And if Art. I, sec. 5 no longer applies, then whether McConnell was allowed to prevent an up-or-down vote for Judge Garland may no longer be considered a political question – that is, a “nonjusticiable” question that courts do not have the authority to adjudicate.

Pres. Obama and Judge Garland had perfectly justiciable claims against McConnell and Senate Republicans back in 2016 – Pres. Obama for an infringement of his appointment power, Judge Garland for a violation of his 5th Amendment procedural due process rights. Specifically, McConnell and Senate Republicans unfairly deprived Judge Garland of a particular property right, the right to an opportunity for full Senate consideration of his SCOTUS nomination. Unfortunately, however, I believe that the window on these two claims has now closed. They are, as lawyers say, “moot.”

In order to prevent another unscrupulous McConnell-like majority leader down the road from unconstitutionally blocking a president’s judiciary nominees, Democrats (if they retake the Senate this November) need immediately to pass an amendment that clearly nullifies the McConnell Rule. The amendment should capture what was the nearly universal understanding of the President’s appointment power before Feb. 2016: barring extenuating circumstances, every judicial nominee for a federal court has the right to confirmation hearings and an up-or-down vote as long as the nomination is made more than three months before an election, whether midterm or presidential.

More articles by:

Ken Levy is the Holt B. Harrison Professor of Law at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 13, 2019
Vijay Prashad
After Evo, the Lithium Question Looms Large in Bolivia
Charles Pierson
How Not to End a Forever War
Kenneth Surin
“We’ll See You on the Barricades”: Bojo Johnson’s Poundshop Churchill Imitation
Nick Alexandrov
Murder Like It’s 1495: U.S.-Backed Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
George Ochenski
Montana’s Radioactive Waste Legacy
Brian Terrell
A Doubtful Proposition: a Reflection on the Trial of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7
Nick Pemberton
Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech
James Bovard
The “Officer Friendly” Police Fantasy
Dean Baker
The Logic of Medical Co-Payments
Jeff Mackler
Chicago Teachers Divided Over Strike Settlement
Binoy Kampmark
The ISC Report: Russian Connections in Albion?
Norman Solomon
Biden and Bloomberg Want Uncle Sam to Defer to Uncle Scrooge
Jesse Jackson
Risking Lives in Endless Wars is Morally Wrong and a Strategic Failure
Manuel García, Jr.
Criminalated Warmongers
November 12, 2019
Nino Pagliccia
Bolivia and Venezuela: Two Countries, But Same Hybrid War
Patrick Cockburn
How Iran-Backed Forces Are Taking Over Iraq
Jonathan Cook
Israel is Silencing the Last Voices Trying to Stop Abuses Against Palestinians
Jim Kavanagh
Trump’s Syrian See-Saw: From Pullout to Pillage
Susan Babbitt
Fidel, Three Years Later
Dean Baker
A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security is What America Needs
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Trump’s Crime Against Humanity
Victor Grossman
The Wall and General Pyrrhus
Yoko Liriano
De Facto Martial Law in the Philippines
Ana Paula Vargas – Vijay Prashad
Lula is Free: Can Socialism Be Restored?
Thomas Knapp
Explainer: No, House Democrats Aren’t Violating Trump’s Rights
Wim Laven
Serve With Honor, Honor Those Who Serve; or Support Trump?
Colin Todhunter
Agrarian Crisis and Malnutrition: GM Agriculture Is Not the Answer
Binoy Kampmark
Walls in the Head: “Ostalgia” and the Berlin Wall Three Decades Later
Akio Tanaka
Response to Pete Dolack Articles on WBAI and Pacifica
Nyla Ali Khan
Bigotry and Ideology in India and Kashmir: the Legacy of the Babri Masjid Mosque
Yves Engler
Canada Backs Coup Against Bolivia’s President
November 11, 2019
Aaron Goings, Brian Barnes, and Roger Snider
Class War Violence: Centralia 1919
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
“Other Than Honorable?” Veterans With “Bad Paper” Seek Long Overdue Benefits
Peter Linebaugh
The Worm in the Apple
Joseph Natoli
In the Looming Shadow of Civil War
Robert Fisk
How the Syrian Democratic Forces Were Suddenly Transformed into “Kurdish Forces”
Patrick Cockburn
David Cameron and the Decline of British Leadership
Naomi Oreskes
The Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All
Fred Gardner
Most Iraq and Afghanistan Vets now Regret the Mission
Howard Lisnoff
The Dubious Case of Washing Machines and Student Performance
Nino Pagliccia
The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Mammon: Amazon and the Seattle Council Elections
Kim C. Domenico
To Overthrow Radical Evil, Part II: A Grandmother’s Proposal
Marc Levy
Veterans’ Day: Four Poems
Weekend Edition
November 08, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
The Real Constitutional Crisis: The Constitution
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail