The state of our union is, uh, delayed

Democrats have delayed the Judiciary Committee hearing vote on imminently-Justice Alito, the Post reports, not least prompted (as one candid staffer for the Minority Leader admits) by a desire to minimize the scope of the nomination triumph before the President's State of the Union address. In response, the Majority Leader has annouced that he has cancelled the Senate's recess next week to ensure that the nomination reaches the floor in January; all other business, he intimated, was on hold: "[w]e'll stay on the nomination until the judge is the justice."

Huzzah for the Majority Leader, but it got me wondering: if the Dems' game is to push the confirmation back behind the State of the Union, why doesn't the President simply declare that the State of the Union address will take place the week following Justice Alito's confirmation?

After all, neither the date nor the form of the State of the Union are required by the Constitution nor by statute; its timing ("[i]t has occurred in January except for 6 occasions in February since 1934," notes Wikipedia) and verbal nature (it was delivered as a letter rather than a speech, from the Jefferson Administration until the Wilson Administration) are the product of tradition. Traditionally, nominees as qualified as Judge Alito have been confirmed in a timely manner, so if the Democrats are happy to throw tradition to the wind, perhaps we should consider joining in the fun?

How was that Nan and Ralph?

Leave a comment: