WASHINGTON – The Senate begins Tuesday with an expected disputed but predictable Supreme Court showdown as part of a judicial confirmation process that appears to be almost irreversibly damaged and polarized.
Abolition of 60-vote vote Most Democratic nominees in 2013 and Republicans against the Supreme Court candidates in 2017 have abandoned the role of the Senate to offer advice and approval to the President's decisions. It now allows the majority party to impose candidates without taking into account the views or objections of the minority – a significant break in the tradition of the Senate.
"I do not know that I would say that the system is broken, but I think it was pretty badly done," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the chairman of the Utah Republican and former Justice Committee, who attended his 15th Confirmation procedure of the Supreme Court will participate.  The Republicans will convene a hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett M on Tuesday. Kavanaugh, despite Democrats' angry objections, has not produced relevant documents from his years in the administration of George W. Bush. They say that Republicans grossly gloss over minority rights, which amounts to an apparent hearing.
"They ridicule the process, and that's because the # 1 objective of the tough right is to stack the bank ideologues because they know they can not reach their goals through the chosen branches," said Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, leader of the Democrats.
But Mr. Schumer and his party can do little to stop the affirmation of Judge Kavanaugh without help from Republicans, as his nomination can be made and accepted by simple majority. Since the Republicans have no significant disqualifying revelation in the hearings, they appear to quickly bring Judge Kavanaugh, who is currently a member of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the Supreme Court. The Republicans consider him an irreproachable decision.
The sinking of the traditional filibusters in the nomination of judges – and the decision of the Republicans in 2016 not even to hold a hearing for Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee, has sparked partisanship (19659005) One way to order restoring could be to revisit the filibuster, an idea that circulated among the Republicans a few years ago, but disappeared when they were in such a strong position
"I would vote for that. Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said he should bring the filibuster back. "There was a reason for the filibuster, and he was rooted in fairness to the minority, and at the moment there is no fairness to the minority. In fact, the norms and traditions of fairness are mocked, which ultimately harms the country.
Republicans scoff at the idea of bringing back the filibuster, and given the harsh political environment, it is hard to imagine that The Senate is reversing President Trump calls on the Senate to be more drastic and eliminate the possibility of to block the legislation – a very unlikely move – and he would undoubtedly fail any effort that would put an end to his legal production line.
"I agree that the 60-vote requirement is you It forces people to do things in a more consistent way and it's always better, "said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican of the second Senate and a high-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee." But that's why we have presidential elections and why presidential elections are so important – the kind of people who would call them to court. "
" If someone is not corrupt or something s really monstrous in his background, I am O.K. with 51 senators confirming federal judges, "said Mr Cornyn.
It is easier for Republicans to take this view now with Democrats to a serious disadvantage, and Senate Republicans and Mr. Trump have been able to get many Conservatives into lifelong appointments on the But when the Democrats finally come to power again, the Republicans will stand at the short end of the stick without the power to prevent the ratification of liberal jurists against whom they resist.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans like to say that the end of the judicial filibusger has only helped restore the Senate's earlier nomination approach, and it is true that filibuster have been sparingly used on nominations until the last two decades when both parties told her Focused on judicial decisions by the President of the other party.
But although e s was not always exercised was the right Filibuster acted as a threat and a defense, and forced President to be more tactical in some court decisions. It also helped to ensure that the Senate senators had a voice in the judiciary as part of the so-called "blue-slip approval process". If their reservations were not respected at the committee level, they would have the opportunity to put their colleagues behind a filibuster. Without this leverage, the blue-slip process erodes.
"I really preferred the old system, because if it was really bad, you could stop it," Mr. Hatch said. "Now you can not stop anything."
"It is putting a lot of pressure on the president to select someone of high quality," Hatch said, adding that he believes that Judge Kavanaugh far surpasses this standard.  Some senators believe that the deterioration of the judicial review process can not continue without undermining the stability and credibility of the Senate and the courts. The wounds are deep and deeper.
"We are now at a point where there is a race to the bottom, who breaks more rules and more traditions in more ways," said Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. "At some point we have to start rebuilding or we will not have anything left."
But the reconstruction – if any – will not come before Tuesday. While the Democrats will try to disclose what they consider to be unfair trials and party-political choice for the court, the Republicans will overwhelmingly fill their second place in the Supreme Court with a Trump candidate.