Can Democrats file a lawsuit due to precedents being binding?

[Drunken Irishman]

In 2016, McConnell set precedents that a Supreme Court justice could not be seated in an election year. If you're not familiar with the rules of the Senate, once precedents is set, it becomes law (or rule or whatever) of the senate. This is why, once Democrats nuked the filibuster, it became the process for future bodies.

Is McConnell now guilty of an abuse of his discretionary authority by refusing to adhere to the precedents he set himself? That's a question that could be answered in a lawsuit.

A lawsuit that certainly would delay any type of action - maybe even well beyond the election.

Just a thought.

[elleng]

1. This was not a 'legal precedent,'

but a 'convenient' ruse; there is no LEGAL basis requiring this non-precedent to be followed.

[jorgevlorgan]

2. No. But they can stack the courts after they win

...which looks likely especially if a justice is confirmed.

[JHB]

3. Not "stack." "Restore and rebalance after extreme partisan abuse of power...

...with lifetime appointments."

[NYC Liberal]

4. Non-justiciable. Senate can set whatever rules it wants and they are not subject to judicial review

unless they were to do something that explicitly contradicts the Constitution -- like only requiring a simple majority to ratify the treaty when the Constitution expressly states a 2/3 majority is required.

Also, McConnell cannot do anything alone. He just has the support of the majority of senators and has influence. At the end of the day, legally, he still has only one vote.