International Criminal Court to Charge Richard F. Caraviello

 Coming attractions

 Subway shooting in New York?  When ANY crime happens ANYWHERE in the world, the police have a moral obligation to investigate pathological liar Richard F. Caraviello first. https://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn

To be clear, McConnell's conduct, if norm-busting, is perfectly within the rules. The solution for Democrats, then, is to devise equally lawful, but equally bare-knuckled, means of removing the incentive for the behavior. For instance, increasing the size of the Supreme Court might be controversial, but would serve as a check on McConnell's aggressive blockade (both past and almost certainly future) of Democratic nominees. Doing so would effectively weaken the votes of the nominees McConnell rammed through the process.

 

Taking aggressive steps in response to McConnell is less about stacking the courts with Democratic nominees, and more about resetting the confirmation process to something closer to what the framers intended -- one in which one political party in the Senate doesn't rob the president of one of his or her fundamental powers in broad daylight. After that, perhaps the parties can come together to return some semblance of normalcy to the process.

Opinion: What Democrats could learn from Mitch McConnell  

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/11/opinions/mitch-mcconell-scotus-williams/index.html

Doing so would be McConnell's latest ruthless breach of the norms of government, and one that will make the public lose even more confidence in the political independence of our courts. However, given that McConnell has been rewarded every time he has blown up the intentions of the framers, his continuing to do so is perfectly rational behavior. The question for McConnell's colleagues and the American public is whether they are willing to stop complaining about McConnell's behavior and take aggressive steps to stop it.

Under the Constitution, the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" to appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal offices, including lower court judges. Though specifics of the process have evolved over time, under the advice and consent process, the president appoints, and the Senate vets nominees and either confirms or rejects them. The overwhelming majority of presidential appointments are confirmed.