What if Democratic senators boycott SC confirmation hearings altogether?

[Mike 03]

Some of you have pointed out that the optics would be terrible to have Dems viciously interrogating female judges, especially Nagoa, who is Cuban-American. (I question this assumption, because I think most Americans know what is going on and what is at stake her, but on the other hand they might be correct.)

But we could give this process no legitimacy at all if we simply don't attend it whatsoever and dismiss it as a cynical political maneuver that can have catastrophic consequences for the foreseeable future.

If Dems just don't show up, then it wouldn't be personal: the animosity wouldn't be directed at the judges, but at the process. It would be seen as an illegitimate process.

I'm guessing this is not a good idea or someone would have suggested it before. So, what exactly is the problem with this proposal that Democrats entirely avoid even attending these proceedings?

EDIT: Thank you for your answers. I knew something was wrong with this idea or someone would have proposed it, but I didn't know the reasons why it was not a good idea.

[sfstaxprep]

1. It's Not Going To Happen nt

[FBaggins]

2. In theory, that would deny the committee a quorum

Which by current rules requires two members of the minority.

In practice, it wouldn't stop the hearings and would not make them "illegitimate" (except for rhetorically). Would impeachment have been illegitimate if republicans chose not to attend the hearings or a vote?

[Raven123]

3. I think Dems should do their job.

Publicly question the nominee to get on record her positions on relevant issues. Be calm, cordial and diligent. The American people deserve to know who this nominee is and what she represents. Leaving that job to one party won’t achieve that goal.

[elleng]

5. YES

[SharonClark]

10. Agree 100%

[markpkessinger]

12. Publicly questioning the nominee will acomplish absolutely nothing . . .

. . . and by participating in the proceedings, Democrats will be lending an air of legitimacy to the whole business that it does not deserve.

[Raven123]

15. You never know how voters may view the proceedings. - not now, but for future elections

You never know what might turn up under questioning, without attending the proceedings. You cede the GOP portrayal of the nominee.

[not_the_one]

14. It has already been suggested (by Rush) that they go straight to a vote, no questions. Why bother?

Just as well, they are all lined up, regardless of what they have said in the past. And it would be a waste of time, changing nothing.

It would actually make for great optics for democrats, since it would be obvious as hell to every thinking American, what they were doing. We just need to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR the shit they are pulling.

And the ploy about "not voting before the election" means they WILL vote the day after (or close to) and get the same result. It is nothing but political posturing while the country is destroyed.

Moscow Mitch is going to do the will of Putin's puppet, no matter what. And they have already rigged the result.

Sadly, Putin may get his ultimate wish.

If this can't be stopped we are going to destroy ourselves. Count on it. THAT has been what this is all about.

The turd was bought... lock, stock and barrel, with the very first laundering of Putin's mobster money. The turd was on the gravy train, Putin was grooming him for chaos and....

The rest was/is history.

The question is do we have what it takes to out think them? Can we come up with the "strategery" that will work?

[elleng]

4. 'viciously interrogating female judges' doesn't happen, by Democrats,

we ask reasonable, and often pointed questions.

I want all of us to be in the Room where it Happens.

[Mike 03]

7. I know we don't, but that was the point another poster made.

Anyway, these are all good answers. I thought there was something wrong with this premise, but I wanted to find out what it was.

[stillcool]

6. I think they should show up..

it's their job, but they don't have to participate in the charade. Instead of asking the nominee questions, they could freak-out like their Republican colleagues and just go off on whatever they like.

[Mike 03]

8. That seems to be the consensus, that they should do their job.

I just wanted to see why this idea wouldn't work--and now I see.

Thank you.

[roamer65]

9. If anyone has any dirt on LadyG, it's time to take him down.

[Thekaspervote]

11. Oh no kidding!!

[Jose Garcia]

13. It would certainly speed up the process