GreenGoo wrote:While it is certainly possible that they could do it, or at least try to do it, I'm curious why it hasn't been done before if it is as easy as just deciding to do it.
While that is not a counter argument, what makes it more likely to happen this time than any other time previously? Because they've shown they are willing to do it for a year? Is your position then that 4 years will become 8 years if Hillary is re-elected? Is your position that they will continue to do so in perpetuity until they are in a position to nominate their own? What happens if they lose the ability to refuse? What happens if they lose their ability to force their president's nomination through?
It's not so much that there is a physical impossibility to doing as you suggest, it's that the consequences of doing so are unknown and therefore scary (for everyone, including themselves).
While this is the craziest election in decades, I'm not sure we're at the level of crazy you're suggesting.
Maybe? Probably not?
Political norms are steadily breaking down over time. The main reason why this hasn't happened before is that there was a widespread view / norm that the President has the right to appoint any reasonably qualified mainstream jurist of his choosing, and that the role of the Senate in its "advice and consent" on this was to confirm that they're qualified and not crazy and whatnot. And yes, the democrats have played a role in breaking down this norm. Robert Bork, who was pretty objectively qualified to be a SCOTUS justice, was the first nominee (at least that I'm aware of) to be rejected by the Senate on ideological grounds - for having (in the view of the Senate) too "extreme" views.
In some ways this is just an extension of that basic concept. A GOP senate wouldn't say that they would not consider any nominee full stop. But they might well take an aggressive view of their role - e.g., you can nominate whoever you want, and we will evaluate and vote, but the Senate is not required to confirm a nominee that they don't like, and disliking their judicial philosophy is a reasonable grounds to reject a nominee. Therefore we, the GOP senate, want to see "strict constitutionalists" on the court.
You can also flip the thinking to highlight how much traditional political customs have kept the wheels of government running. Why would a GOP senate vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice who is very likely to spend the next few decades mostly undermining the GOP policy agenda? The only reason is custom / norms - "this is what the Senate *should* do in general").
Similarly, at the beginning of the country the presidential veto was regarded as something that the president shouldn't use on legislation that he merely *dislikes*, but rather was only for legislation that he viewed as unconstitutional. Then Andrew Jackson came in and started vetoing any legislation he disliked. He was widely criticized for that at the time, but now no one would even think of criticizing a president for doing that. Similarly, the filibuster used to be only for legislation that the minority not only disliked but which was viewed as extreme / beyond-the-pale. Now the filibuster is used routinely.
In fact, I think that even if this doesn't happen now, it's inevitable (unless the system changes) that the senate will de facto refuse to confirm a nominee of the opposing party, and vacancies will become more common.
Black Lives Matter.
