Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Cecilie1200]

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a bitch slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a bitch slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

revenge is a dish best served cold,,,,you've got it coming

Yes, how dare we disagree with you and dare to think we should have and express our own opinions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Find a libertarian Judge or Conservative Judge and nominate that one..............Presto.........nomination..........The Constitution requires vetting of a Life Time Appointment for a reason.......so the Senate can vote for or against the nominee from the executive............So the Senate has no obligation to appoint what is probably coming from Obama...

The Dems have stone walled in the past and had some thrown out............It's time for them to get a taste of their own medicine.

Then you agree that Senate Democrats don't have to even vote on any nominees sent their way by Trump or Cruz, should one of them win the presidency?

If you think your precious Senate Democrats can get enough of a majority to allow that sort of thing, then you just go on with your bad selves. Good luck with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

Disingenous.

Two vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Tyler's presidency, as Justices Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin died in 1843 and 1844, respectively. Tyler, ever at odds with Congress—including the Whig-controlled Senate—nominated several men to the Supreme Court to fill these seats. However, the Senate successively voted against confirming John Canfield Spencer, Reuben Walworth, Edward King and John M. Read (King was rejected twice). One reason cited for the Senate's actions was the hope that Clay would fill the vacancies after winning the 1844 presidential election.[92] Tyler's four unsuccessful nominees are the most by a president.[104]
Finally, in February 1845, with less than a month remaining in his term, Tyler's nomination of Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson, a Democrat, had a reputation as a careful and noncontroversial jurist. Still, his confirmation came as a surprise. Baldwin's seat remained vacant until James K. Polk's nominee, Robert Grier, was confirmed in 1846.

Now, Smith Thompson died in December of 1843 and Henry Baldwin died in April of 1844. Thompson's seat was filled February of 1845, which by my math would be a vacancy of 14 months. Baldwin's seat was filled in August of 1846 by the next President, James Polk. That works out to 28 months, if I'm counting correctly.

Your attempt to limit it ONLY to the "9-man court" to try to make it look like the Senate has some obligation to allow the outgoing President to appoint Justices is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. It's reminiscent of "hottest summer in recorded history, so GLOBAL WARMING!", which leaves out the fact that we've only been tracking and recording such things for a few decades. And you already know how much respect we give THAT crap.

Let's all just keep in mind that our nation's history extends back well past the liberal saint, FDR, and is just as relevant.

We have had a 9 justice Supreme Court since 1869, 147 years. Prior to that the court size varied from 6 to 9. The court traveled extensively between circuits, had no control of their docket and handled mostly civil cases. The Supreme Court in those days was far different than today

The Senate has the obligation to approve Supreme Court nominees just as the president has the obligation to nominate them. There is the presumption that the Senate and the President will perform their duties in a timely manner. The constitution doesn't define a timely manner. Voters certainly will.

To leave a Supreme Court seat vacant puts an added workload on existing justices. It is certainly unfair to those pleading their case not have a full court hear their case not to mention the possibility of a tie vote where nothing is decided.

In regard to the Advice and Consent clause, some framers of the constitution felt that whatever advice the Senate might have for the president should come before the nomination while others felt it should be given after the nomination. However, I don't think any of framers would agree with the Senate advising the president not do his job because we're not going to do ours.

Yes, yes, there's ALWAYS a reason why something is okay for Democrats to propose, but utterly heinous and unthinkable and verging on traitorous when turned back on them.

Perhaps if you all keep dumbing down the population, you'll finally achieve a majority stupid enough to believe your shit.

 

[Flopper]

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

have no details. But this is huge.

Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.

Sad, very very sad.


.

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As long as they can....you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing? LMAO

maybe but the question is what's good for america ?,,,,can there be no compromise ahead in our lifetimes ...must hate and anger permeate{sp} our elections? will we be divided forever??

Do you mean the hate and anger fostered by Obama's divisiveness, lies, and intentional fumbling of American interests?

That is EXACTLY what we need to get rid of, and it requires that we let no more Obama appointees get confirmed.

All the hate and anger began with Mitch McConnel stating that Republcians only job was to make certain Obama was only a one term president. When it has come to Obama's nominations for judges, the obstructionist agenda of Republicans has been unprecedented. Now it is time for the Dems to take back the Senate and keep the White House so we can make certain that the rubes to not get a chance to send the SCOTUS back to the dark ages.

You say "obstructionist". I say "patriotic".

Say what you will, Obama, as President, represents the will of the people through their votes. The trust put in him has been affirmed by his two terms in office. His choice for a candidate to replace Scalia should NOT be abrogated by partisan politics or just plain hatred. The candidate should be evaluated solely on merit and past performance.

Say what you will, but the last Congressional election revealed a definite loss of trust in him on the part of the people.

Being nominated by Obama is itself a rather large mark against their merit.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.

Sad, very very sad.


.

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

The Dems have used the power of the Senate to block Supreme Court nominations...........and one that was appointed, Thomas, was UNCLE TOM to the Dems.........even though getting on the court. The Dems have NO HALLOWED ground to stand on in this issue...........

The Senate is a check on power and rightfully so............forcing the President to select the most qualified Judges and not selected by their ideology................Sodomayor and Kagan being in that catagory..........at least Roberts is a middle ground judge.........He and Kennedy sway from side to side on certain issues.......so no ideology has final say.

Obama nominates a REAL MODERATE Judge like Roberts and he can end the battle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

No, the "leadership" making the acceptance or rejection of a nominee is not in the Constitution.


>>>>

it certainly does

Show me in the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 where it says the leadership gets to decide for the whole Senate?

Hint it doesn't. As a matter of fact it in another area of consent it specifically calls for a 2/3rds vote for consent. Meaning individual Senator votes count, not just the leadership.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And, it's unprecedented, right? No one has EVER suggested such a thing in the past?

Schumer: No More Free Rides For Bush SCOTUS Nominees - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Why would I give a rat fart what Schumer said? I'm a Republican.

But I do agree with Senator McConnell when he said "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."

We should follow the Constitution, not play partisan politics.


>>>>

 

[Faun]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

The president has the authority to select a nominee. The senate can reject that nominee (and future ones) for as long as they choose - be it months or years. WE have the authority to put new senate members in place should we decide that what they are doing is unacceptable. All of it constitutional and all of it exactly how the government is supposed to operate. It is not 'broken' simply because you or others don't like the outcome.

Every Supreme Court justice was picked by a president. The Senate does have to approve, but it's false to say the president doesn't pick them.

What Republicans are doing would be no different than had Obama said he refuses to name a replacement until after the election in case Democrats take over the Senate.

 

[Faun]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

Actually it was the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell. I haven't heard a single republican senator voice any disagreement so I would assume they agree with him.

Republicans were asked that at the beginning of the last debate. They offered one of two answers... either they would not allow Obama to pick a replacement justice, or even more ridiculously, some asked Obama to not even name a teplacement. They don't want to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities so they're hoping to get Obama to shirk his instead.

 

[Faun]

Find a libertarian Judge or Conservative Judge and nominate that one..............Presto.........nomination..........The Constitution requires vetting of a Life Time Appointment for a reason.......so the Senate can vote for or against the nominee from the executive............So the Senate has no obligation to appoint what is probably coming from Obama...

The Dems have stone walled in the past and had some thrown out............It's time for them to get a taste of their own medicine.

Then you agree that Senate Democrats don't have to even vote on any nominees sent their way by Trump or Cruz, should one of them win the presidency?

If you think your precious Senate Democrats can get enough of a majority to allow that sort of thing, then you just go on with your bad selves. Good luck with that.

How about answering the question instead of running away from it? If Democrats win the Senate, will you support them shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat becomes president?

 

[JimH52]

Obstructionism did not hurt Democrats??



You're fucking insane.

Tell me why Reid lost....?

That aside, I'm guessing most people who are in favor of Republicans spitting on the Constitution and obstructing Obama are gonna vote for the Republican anyway. Most people who think what Republicans are doing is wrong, are gonna vote for the Democrat anyway. Those in between will, as usual, decide the election. I can't imagine more of those people will be voting for those who are circumventing the Constitution for political gain.

--LOL

in 2008 the dems had the house senate and presidency

--LOL

so it didnt hurt them too bad

Again, insanely stupid. Democrats won big in 2008 because Bush drove the economy 6 feet under the ground.

And you didn't answer my question ... why did Reid lose the Senate in 2014?

Do you want me to find some posts on here by conservatives from back then to jog your memory?

Reid lost the Senate in 2014 because the GOP has done a much better job of getting their base motivated to vote in every election, not just Presidential ones. Plus, they managed to get some of their loopier candidates (like that nutbag in Iowa) to suppress some of their loopiness after winning their primaries. That's a lesson they learned after the 2010 elections, when they could have gotten the Senate then, but a few of their wingier wingnuts blew it for them.

Tge GOP played the Fearmongering card like a fiddle in 2014.

They did and it helped keep their fired-up base fired up. Voter apathy on the Dem side helped to make sure there was little to counter it.

It'll likely be that way in 2018, too.

If the Supreme Court is in balance, it is very doubtful.

 

[eddiew]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

Disingenous.

Two vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Tyler's presidency, as Justices Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin died in 1843 and 1844, respectively. Tyler, ever at odds with Congress—including the Whig-controlled Senate—nominated several men to the Supreme Court to fill these seats. However, the Senate successively voted against confirming John Canfield Spencer, Reuben Walworth, Edward King and John M. Read (King was rejected twice). One reason cited for the Senate's actions was the hope that Clay would fill the vacancies after winning the 1844 presidential election.[92] Tyler's four unsuccessful nominees are the most by a president.[104]
Finally, in February 1845, with less than a month remaining in his term, Tyler's nomination of Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson, a Democrat, had a reputation as a careful and noncontroversial jurist. Still, his confirmation came as a surprise. Baldwin's seat remained vacant until James K. Polk's nominee, Robert Grier, was confirmed in 1846.

Now, Smith Thompson died in December of 1843 and Henry Baldwin died in April of 1844. Thompson's seat was filled February of 1845, which by my math would be a vacancy of 14 months. Baldwin's seat was filled in August of 1846 by the next President, James Polk. That works out to 28 months, if I'm counting correctly.

Your attempt to limit it ONLY to the "9-man court" to try to make it look like the Senate has some obligation to allow the outgoing President to appoint Justices is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. It's reminiscent of "hottest summer in recorded history, so GLOBAL WARMING!", which leaves out the fact that we've only been tracking and recording such things for a few decades. And you already know how much respect we give THAT crap.

Let's all just keep in mind that our nation's history extends back well past the liberal saint, FDR, and is just as relevant.

We have had a 9 justice Supreme Court since 1869, 147 years. Prior to that the court size varied from 6 to 9. The court traveled extensively between circuits, had no control of their docket and handled mostly civil cases. The Supreme Court in those days was far different than today

The Senate has the obligation to approve Supreme Court nominees just as the president has the obligation to nominate them. There is the presumption that the Senate and the President will perform their duties in a timely manner. The constitution doesn't define a timely manner. Voters certainly will.

To leave a Supreme Court seat vacant puts an added workload on existing justices. It is certainly unfair to those pleading their case not have a full court hear their case not to mention the possibility of a tie vote where nothing is decided.

In regard to the Advice and Consent clause, some framers of the constitution felt that whatever advice the Senate might have for the president should come before the nomination while others felt it should be given after the nomination. However, I don't think any of framers would agree with the Senate advising the president not do his job because we're not going to do ours.

Yes, yes, there's ALWAYS a reason why something is okay for Democrats to propose, but utterly heinous and unthinkable and verging on traitorous when turned back on them.

Perhaps if you all keep dumbing down the population, you'll finally achieve a majority stupid enough to believe your shit.

"cecilia you're breaking my heart"

 

[IsaacNewton]

I listen to Mark Levine once in a great while for five or ten minutes. Today he touts being 'a strict Constitutionalist' and rants on about there being nothing in the Constitution about having to 'approve' any nominee.

Which is technically correct, there isn't any language in the Constitution that I know of that says the Senate has to approve anyone. Because the founders never envisioned a political party that would do such a thing at the detriment of the entire country for political purposes. That is where we are now, the Republican party has gotten so radicalized that it now ignores the Constitution and the best interest of the country for petty political purpose. To them there is no country, there is only party.

This is how the old Soviet Union operated. The Communist Party was the all powerful authority and held sway over all of the people's lives, that is what the Republicans are trying to do here. They are attempting to usurp power from the people and concentrate it in the Republican party and deny all other political parties any say in how the government is run or who its officers are. The Republicans have become the Communist Party of the old Soviet Union.

Levine epitomizes their attitude. They say they are strict Constitutionalists but they are lying through their teeth. Their only guide is whatever furthers their political agenda, all other considerations are mute. They in fact IGNORE the Constitution at every moment it doesn't serve the Republican purpose.

The Democrats have vetted and opposed certain nominees in the past and kept some from being appointed, but they always come to agreement on someone so the country and the Supreme Court can get on with its business. They in fact FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, they interview, sometimes harshly, various candidates, then they vote and pick someone. THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CALLS FOR. And that is what the Democrats have ALWAYS done.

The Republicans are now saying they are above the Constitution and the country and their party politics is their lord and savior.

For the good of the nation these people need to be defeated and relegated to minority status in the government. They are right at the point of treason.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

Except that is not what is happening, the Senate leadership has said they will not allow a vote on any nomination and not allow the Senate to vote as required in the Constitution. By not allowing a vote, they are expression the rejection of the leadership and not the Senate itself - those are two different things.


>>>>

so what in that case the senate did not give its consent

No the Senate Leadership gave their rejection, not the Senate - two different things.


>>>>

Actually it was the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell. I haven't heard a single republican senator voice any disagreement so I would assume they agree with him.

I don't get you libs. You like to divide and paint Republicans as evil troglodytes then you expect them to roll over for you. Do you not understand how silly that is?

not only silly but absurd

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

But your obstructionist Leader has already said he will block anyone that the President nominates. PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

good cry me a river

you guys set the precedent for it

there has been many many times when the righties have said

wait until the tables turn

so put that in your pipe and smoke it

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”


Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

Schumer was never the Senate Majority Leader like McConnell and Schumer never said that just one hour after the announced death of a SC justice. Those are significant differences between 2007 and now. That is a failed comparison you and others of your faction have tried to concoct and peddle.

 

[Wildman]

February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson


Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

No, the "leadership" making the acceptance or rejection of a nominee is not in the Constitution.


>>>>

it certainly does

Show me in the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 where it says the leadership gets to decide for the whole Senate?

Hint it doesn't. As a matter of fact it in another area of consent it specifically calls for a 2/3rds vote for consent. Meaning individual Senator votes count, not just the leadership.


>>>>

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

 

[FA_Q2]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

The president has the authority to select a nominee. The senate can reject that nominee (and future ones) for as long as they choose - be it months or years. WE have the authority to put new senate members in place should we decide that what they are doing is unacceptable. All of it constitutional and all of it exactly how the government is supposed to operate. It is not 'broken' simply because you or others don't like the outcome.

Every Supreme Court justice was picked by a president. The Senate does have to approve, but it's false to say the president doesn't pick them.

What Republicans are doing would be no different than had Obama said he refuses to name a replacement until after the election in case Democrats take over the Senate.

That responsibility is shared.

The president does not 'pick' SCOTUS members. He nominates candidates for the senate to approve. Again, it is a shared responsibility. The president must select a nominee that can pass the senate or they are not going to become a member of the SCOTUS.