Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended
there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere
the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended
there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere
It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).
The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.
>>>>
The fact is in this highly polarized political environment a sitting president, democrat or republican will select the most ideologically friendly candidate that he thinks he can get appointed by the Senate and hopefully the candidate will have some other redeeming qualities. The Senate will also try to get the most ideologically friendly candidate However, ideology will almost always trump other qualifications. The only bit of sunshine in this quagmire of political chicanery is the simple fact that some judges, much to chagrin of their masters will actually rule based on what they believe to be just and fair. This of course really screws the selection process because you just can't tell when an appointee will have an attack of conscience and do the right thing.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...........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.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.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.
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.
.
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.
the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended
there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere
It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).
The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.
>>>>
no it does not
for judges it says with advice and consent i highlighted for you
and nowhere does the Constitution state that there needs to be 2/3 of the senate to reject a nominee
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Yes, it is shared and both are required to contribute to the process. It would be no shirking of Constitutional responsibilities if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and then declares they will not nominate anyone until Democrats control the Senate.That responsibility is shared.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.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.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.You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.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.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.Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.
Sad, very very sad.
.
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.
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.
No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.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.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.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.
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.
Good one I didn't considerYou left out a possiblity....McConnell: Senate should not confirm Scalia's replacement until after election
McConnell: After the election.
Possible outcomes if Republicans stall on confirmation
1. Republicans win presidency and hold Senate and name a Conservative Justice
2. Republicans win Presidency but Democrats win Senate and refuse to confirm a Conservative nominee
3. Democrats win Presidency but Republicans hold Senate, Republicans refuse to confirm
4. Democrats win both presidency and Senate and name a Liberal
Republicans win the presidency, Democrats win the Senate, pull the trigger on the nuclear option in the Senate to approve with a simple majority -- and confirm Obama's Liberal nominee before the Republican president is sworn in on January 20th.
They have almost two weeks before the Republican would be inaugurated
Obamas nominee would still be on the table
no recess appointments unless the senate declares itself in recess------------and it won't.
It wouldn't be a RECESS appointment, dumbass.
How about the hypocrisy on the right by those blasting Schumer for suggesting that; though they're shaking their pom-poms for it now?Who decides the filibuster rules?FILABUSTER still on the table.Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?it does january 3rd 2017
The new Senate
The Democratic Senate has already shown they do not support filibuster of court nominees
Schumer did in 2007. hypocrisy much?
Schumer regrets not leading an Alito filibuster ("we should not confirm a 'SCOTUS' nominee EXCEPT")
And the left is playing the opposite card now. I don't see why this is surprising or even noteworthy - the partisans always lambaste the opposing party even if they are backing the same things they advocate for. As for it hurting the right or not, I think it largely depends. I am not so sure that denying Obama's appointees would do a damn thing to the right.And the right lambasted him for even suggesting it. Now the right is actually doing it.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
Of course I would assume that they actually denied them rather than refused to hear them in the first place. There is a rather large difference. If they hold the votes and deny the appointees they will point to Obama trying to install a 'radical liberal judge' and the left will call them obstructionists like they have been. Both bases get their red meat. If they simply refuse to hear them in general they will look rather poor.
Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.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.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.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.
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.
Wrong.
Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007
I posted a link to a rebuttal to your misinformation. Are you too stupid to click on the link?Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.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.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.
Wrong.
Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007
I pointed out that you are too stupid to post any content. I don't do others research for them.I posted a link to a rebuttal to your misinformation. Are you too stupid to click on the link?Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.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.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.
Wrong.
Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007
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..,
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..,
We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.
the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended
there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere
It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).
The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.
>>>>
no it does not
for judges it says with advice and consent i highlighted for you
and nowhere does the Constitution state that there needs to be 2/3 of the senate to reject a nominee
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Please post where I've ever said their needs to be a 2/3rds vote to consent to a nominee? Oh wait I never have, I've always been very careful to point out that it takes a majority of the Senators present (50%+1) to approve a public official.
Oh, that's right. I've specifically pointed out that the method of consent contained in Article 2 Section 2 is be vote indicated but the 2/3rds requirement for treaties that the vote for nominees would than be 50%(+1).
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The method of providing consent cited in the Constitution is by a vote of the Senators, not blocking a vote by the leadership. A couple of Senators in charge blocking the vote is not the intended method of providing consent outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.
But hey, those who advocate following the Constitution only when it's convenient are no better than the liberals like Harry Reid.
>>>>
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..,
We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.
