What’s fascinating about 21 centuray American politics is how many norms and “given’s” are being stripped away on a regular basis, how perfunctory these stories are treated by the media, and how accepted it is if a party or political figure discards longstanding principles of how our government has long functioned. The change then suddenly becomes the new norm, with little resistance (which suggests American democracy in general is fragile). It is indeed unprecedented that a political party would not even MEET and put up to a vote (where they could vote down) the nominee of a President because it’s election year. And all the talk about people who may have suggested it work that way means little because: i-t h-a-s n-o-t e-v-e-r h-a-p-p-e-n-ed that a party would not even allow hearings on a President’s nominee.

And now we have yet a new one. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has just re-written the rules on Supreme Court nominees: the powerful National Rifle Association now has veto power over all Supreme Court nominees. That most assuredly would have been a factor in many senators’ votes in the past — but now this is an openly-stated new rule for any nominee to the Supreme Court. Now, this isn’t a comedy new rule like Bill Maher’s new rules, it’s yet another sign of how today’s GOP increasingly isn’t conservative but is morphing into something else, even if you take Donald Trump out of the picture. Think Progress reports:

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”
The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama.
But it’s also worth examining exactly who McConnell would give a veto power over nominees. The NFIB, of course, was a plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That lawsuit called upon the justices to impose limits on federal power that even the late Justice Antonin Scalia refused to impose in previous cases (although it’s worth noting that Scalia abandoned his previous principled stance when given the opportunity to cast a vote against Obamacare). When the NFIB isn’t fighting to take health care away from millions of Americans, it fights equally hard against raising the minimum wage.
The NRA, meanwhile, is known for its increasingly absolutist opposition to gun safety laws. Though Garland’s record on guns is fairly thin, the NRA opposes Garland’s nomination based on two cases he considered as a judge.

Think Progress then goes into those two cases and go to the link to read more about them. But the larger point is the mask — held on by an elastic band that was frayed and about to break — is now totally off: the Republican Party won’t even slate a hearing now for President who was elected twice and the NRA has the final say on who’ll sit on the court. It’s the ultimate confirmation of how special interests groups, giving big bucks to candidates, can literally take control of America’s political process.

McConnell’s comments will please many GOPers who may decide they will have to get out and vote. Republicans will likely frame the court battle as one over some foaming at the mouth liberal (or socialist) who’ll come in and take their guns away. On the Democratic side, the stakes for Democrats could never be more clear: they will have to work to regain control of the Senate.

For those who want tougher gun control we can use that dreaded, awful, cringe-inducing cliche phrase:

This election is a defining moment.

The Democrats could lose all three branches of government to the Republicans, and to the NRA.

That should motivate Republicans. And it should motivate Democrats, except those who continue to talk about teaching their party a lesson and staying home, which would essentially be gifting all three branches of the government to the GOP. The perfect Christmas (or Chanuka) gift!

To the party’s voters who most keep their eyes on the Supreme Court prize go the spoils.

Oliver Willis:

In reality, the Senate is not in a so-called “lame duck,” which is the period in-between an election and when the newly elected members of Congress are seated. In fact, there are eight months until the next election, and only eight members of the Supreme Court due to the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

President Obama has submitted the nomination of former Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor Judge Merrick Garland to the Senate, but so far Republicans are refusing to do their constitutional duty and give the judge a fair hearing.

Previously, Judge Garland received widespread praise from top Republicans like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), but now faces obstruction since he was nominated by a Democratic president.

Polls have shown that a majority of voters believe that Judge Garland deserves due consideration by the Senate, and that he should receive an up or down vote. Research has shown that the Republican claim that a Supreme Court nomination in the final year of a presidency does not deserve consideration is not supported by facts.

The refusal to even hold hearings for Judge Garland is unusual. Samuel Alito and John Roberts, Justices nominated by President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, received consideration by Democrats in the Senate. Both men now sit on the Supreme Court, and were part of the court’s 5-4 conservative majority for several years.

A cross section of tweets:

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.

themoderatevoice.com/