The House chamber on Wednesday became the site of an hours-long sit-in by dozens of House Democrats who defied the Republican majority and demanded that they hold a vote on a gun-control measure before a weeklong recess for Independence Day.
The Democrats — including senior party leaders — plunked down in the well of the chamber, effectively paralyzing all legislative business as they chanted, “No bill, no break!” They took turns making impassioned speeches against gun violence, interspersed with chants demanding a vote on measures to tighten the nation’s gun laws.
But shortly after the sit-in began, Republicans forced the House into recess, cutting off the microphones and the televised feed that broadcasts floor proceedings live on C-Span. Democrats refused to relinquish control of the chamber and enlisted new technology — the Periscope live-stream feature of Twitter — to overcome the Republican blackout.
C-Span picked up the feed and broadcast as if the House was in session, albeit with the unavoidably shaky camerawork by lawmakers using their cellphones.
.. Yet even by the hyperpartisan standards of modern Washington, it was a brazen disruption that underscored the outrage many lawmakers have expressed about the failure of Congress to act in the aftermath of numerous mass shootings.
.. Even if all Senate Democrats and the independents who caucus with them voted in favor, which is hardly assured, at least 14 Republicans would need to agree to reach the 60-vote threshold for advancing the measure. Ms. Collins still seemed far short of that number on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court: The Nightmare Scenario
A year without a justice is the least of our worries. We could be in for a full-scale constitutional meltdown.
.. But suppose Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and the Republicans keep control of the Senate. There’s every reason to think that the Senate’s refusal to confirm a Democratic nominee would continue.
.. And if the Senate continues to refuse to act, that means that the President would have to play a card higher than the one the Senate is playing.
.. At some point, someone in the White House counsel’s office will notice that the Constitution doesn’t actually say that the Senate needs to vote to confirm a judicial nominee. The Constitution says that appointments shall be made “with the advice and consent” of the Senate. Traditionally, we have thought that the Senate’s “consent” is signaled by an affirmative vote. But voting on the nominee is just a convention—a shared understanding among the players in the game that we do things a certain way.
.. This is where the fragility of conventions comes into play. Just as there’s no rule that the Senate needs to consider the nominee quickly, there’s no clear reason why the Senate’s consent to a nomination must be signaled with an affirmative vote.
.. In many areas of the law, silence signifies consent. One could perfectly well read the Constitution to mean that the Senate has consented to a nominee if it remains silent for some reasonable period of time—in fact, it might make a lot of sense to read the consent requirement that way.
.. it’s important to realize that the history of judicial appointments over the last few decades is a history of one convention after another being tossed out. The political parties have been escalating their conflict over judicial personnel for years.
.. On January 20, 2017, she nominates a Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and three weeks later, when the Senate has done nothing, President Clinton mentions at a press briefing that if ninety days go by from the date of nomination and the Senate still hasn’t acted, she will take that to mean that the Senate has no objection and has consented to the appointment.