Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[EriktheRed]

The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

Watch 'em.

 

[Faun]

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.

>>>>

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who supported Schumer's call to stop "free rides" while condemning the same happening now because it's happening to them. Surely you understand that, so I wonder why you even bothered to type the first line.

Who supported Schumer? Name names.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.


>>>>

Hey, Brain Trust. Article 2 deals with the Presidency. I think you were going for Article 1.

But hey, YOU know the Constitution backward and forward, and should be a compelling voice in how we view it, right? Yeah, no credibility gap THERE.

For the record, what you're actually asking for is found in Article 1, Section 5, second paragraph:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Huh. Looks like the Senate gets to set the rules for who is in charge of the business of the Senate and how it gets addressed, doesn't it? Sort of like when Harry Reid was majority leader, and just let stuff sit on his desk, ignored.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

Hey, Brain Trust. Article 2 deals with the Presidency. I think you were going for Article 1.

But hey, YOU know the Constitution backward and forward, and should be a compelling voice in how we view it, right? Yeah, no credibility gap THERE.

For the record, what you're actually asking for is found in Article 1, Section 5, second paragraph:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Huh. Looks like the Senate gets to set the rules for who is in charge of the business of the Senate and how it gets addressed, doesn't it? Sort of like when Harry Reid was majority leader, and just let stuff sit on his desk, ignored.

No, actually Article 2 Section 2 is the correct section.

Since advise and consent is a constitutional requirement of the Senate it superceds Senate rules.



You should be embarrassed to even think that a rule of the Senate over-rules the Constitution itself. Maybe you should review Article VI "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;..."



>>>>

 

[JimH52]

The Republicans clearly do not have to confirm an Obama nominee and it would be nuts for them to do so. The Supreme Court is never a big voting issue - especially with the Democrats - and there is really very little in it for the GOP. Your going to hear a lot of arguments from the left about how the republicans really risk a lot by not confirming someone -- just like they did with immigration reform where they tried to sell the nonsense that the republicans had to cave because they could never win again with out the Hispanic vote. the country isn't going to care that there are 8 on the supreme court and that 4-4 ties go with the lower court decision and lack precedental value. It just isn't.

on the other hand approving ANY Obama nominee means TRump is the presidential nominee. Game over.

No one is suggesting they approve "ANY" Obama nominee. Many are finding fault with the Republicans who are saying they won't approve any Obama nominee.

They are basically gambling with the Supreme Court to get a conservative to replace Scalia. They could work with Obama now on a replacement and get a moderate, just as Democrats did with Reagan in 1988 to confirm Kennedy. But that's not good enough for them. They are going for all or nothing. They are banking on winning the presidency and the Senate so they can install a conservative.

It could work out that way for them.

Or it could back fire on them and Democrats could win the presidency and the Senate and install a Liberal, making the court 5-3 Liberal with 1 swing vote.

That's all well and good but the issue isn't really a "moderate" either. Lets say that the Democrats served up another Kennedy in every respect who you feel is a moderate (and trust me to Barrack Obama he is no moderate -- Sonia Sotomaior is). That would change the current balance on the court. Maybe not as much as another Sotomaior would but it definitely would. It is the current balance that Obama wants to change and the Republicans are defending and have every political reason to do so. The reality that a "moderate" who would be appointed by Obama would just be a liberal judge who does not have much of a track record to shoot at.

And approving an Obama nominee hands the nomination to Trump (perhaps unfairly to Cruz and the others, but it does ) and they still are hoping they can stop him

And Obama would never take up your suggestion in the first place. Hes looking to turn the court left for generations and insure that his so called legacy doesn't get wrecked in the court which another Kennedy might do. He would clearly make the calculus that if the choice were a new Kennedy or taking his chances on the next election he would clearly take his chances on the next election s well. There is nothing in it for him to pick a moderate like Kennedy.

What this does illustrate is how absurd it is that in this democracy such important questions depend on who happens to die when whoever is in office. This shouldn't be such a crap shoot

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.

Unless the GOP wants to lose badly in November, they better compromise.

 

[BlueGin]

Libs are funny. "When we block justice appointments it's warranted and our duty". " When republicans get the chance to do same.... They should reconsider for the good of the country".


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[Flopper]

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, 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.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you fuck em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "fucking the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Yo jock strap

When the opposition stands for death, crime, tyranny misery

do we have a right to oppose it?

.

You have the right but whether you are right is another story.

 

[percysunshine]

There is no way a replacement will be approved by the Senate in Obamas' term.

This should make the elections even more exciting.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If it becomes clear to republicans, that Clinton is likely to be the next president, they may just be able to negotiate with Obama to get a more acceptable nominee than wait for Clinton to make a nomination. You have a much more liberal court now with Scilia gone and there are some important cases going to be coming up over the next year.

Republicans are playing a dangerous game

If they hold out for a Scalia type conservative, they may end up with a young liberal who will torment them for decades

Obama will be forced to nominate a moderate. Hillary will be able to trot out Liberal after Liberal until they get confirmed

Hillary has shown the capacity to be bribed. If she is the next president, the Koch brothers will make a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and Ted Cruz will be the nominee.

heh...

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the republicans are so corrupt they believe it is their decision whether to have hearings after a nomination is made to the Supreme Court ...

.

 

[Faun]

Libs are funny. "When we block justice appointments it's warranted and our duty". " When republicans get the chance to do same.... They should reconsider for the good of the country".


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

When have Democrats ever denied a Republican president their obligation to consider any of the president's nominees?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

POTUS SAYS
(AP) -- President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that Republicans have no constitutional grounds to refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee, and he challenged his political foes in the Senate to rise above the "venom and rancor ... (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

 

[Flopper]

The Republicans clearly do not have to confirm an Obama nominee and it would be nuts for them to do so. The Supreme Court is never a big voting issue - especially with the Democrats - and there is really very little in it for the GOP. Your going to hear a lot of arguments from the left about how the republicans really risk a lot by not confirming someone -- just like they did with immigration reform where they tried to sell the nonsense that the republicans had to cave because they could never win again with out the Hispanic vote. the country isn't going to care that there are 8 on the supreme court and that 4-4 ties go with the lower court decision and lack precedental value. It just isn't.

on the other hand approving ANY Obama nominee means TRump is the presidential nominee. Game over.

No one is suggesting they approve "ANY" Obama nominee. Many are finding fault with the Republicans who are saying they won't approve any Obama nominee.

They are basically gambling with the Supreme Court to get a conservative to replace Scalia. They could work with Obama now on a replacement and get a moderate, just as Democrats did with Reagan in 1988 to confirm Kennedy. But that's not good enough for them. They are going for all or nothing. They are banking on winning the presidency and the Senate so they can install a conservative.

It could work out that way for them.

Or it could back fire on them and Democrats could win the presidency and the Senate and install a Liberal, making the court 5-3 Liberal with 1 swing vote.

That's all well and good but the issue isn't really a "moderate" either. Lets say that the Democrats served up another Kennedy in every respect who you feel is a moderate (and trust me to Barrack Obama he is no moderate -- Sonia Sotomaior is). That would change the current balance on the court. Maybe not as much as another Sotomaior would but it definitely would. It is the current balance that Obama wants to change and the Republicans are defending and have every political reason to do so. The reality that a "moderate" who would be appointed by Obama would just be a liberal judge who does not have much of a track record to shoot at.

And approving an Obama nominee hands the nomination to Trump (perhaps unfairly to Cruz and the others, but it does ) and they still are hoping they can stop him

And Obama would never take up your suggestion in the first place. Hes looking to turn the court left for generations and insure that his so called legacy doesn't get wrecked in the court which another Kennedy might do. He would clearly make the calculus that if the choice were a new Kennedy or taking his chances on the next election he would clearly take his chances on the next election s well. There is nothing in it for him to pick a moderate like Kennedy.

What this does illustrate is how absurd it is that in this democracy such important questions depend on who happens to die when whoever is in office. This shouldn't be such a crap shoot

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.

Are you actually proposes we nominate a moderate who believes that there are parts of the constitution that are subject to interpretation while others are not, a person that will hear a case without red or blue filters. Now that would be a novel concept.

 

[Flopper]

What I don't understand is why Mitch McConnell made it clear that the Senate will not consider Obama's nomination, no matter who he nominates.. He could of just said after the Senate receives the president's nomination the Senate will give it due consideration and then just tie it up in committee. Why force Republicans to explain to voters for next 10 mos. why their senators who are being paid over $175,000/yr are not doing their job.

 

[Wildman]

When you're dealing with the consistently idiotic, it's easy to see their "thought" patterns.

i agree, demoscum/libertards have got to be THE most idiotic, retarded, lame brained collection of human flesh ever to disgrace this once great country, you people (?) need to devolve back to the slimy swaps whence you came !!

 

[hazlnut]

When you're dealing with the consistently idiotic, it's easy to see their "thought" patterns.

i agree, demoscum/libertards have got to be THE most idiotic, retarded, lame brained collection of human flesh ever to disgrace this once great country, you people (?) need to devolve back to the slimy swaps whence you came !!

And you, coming out of their ass, what's that make you?

 

[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.


>>>>

Hey, Brain Trust. Article 2 deals with the Presidency. I think you were going for Article 1.

But hey, YOU know the Constitution backward and forward, and should be a compelling voice in how we view it, right? Yeah, no credibility gap THERE.

For the record, what you're actually asking for is found in Article 1, Section 5, second paragraph:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Huh. Looks like the Senate gets to set the rules for who is in charge of the business of the Senate and how it gets addressed, doesn't it? Sort of like when Harry Reid was majority leader, and just let stuff sit on his desk, ignored.

they certainly do

 

[JimH52]

.
the republicans are so corrupt they believe it is their decision whether to have hearings after a nomination is made to the Supreme Court ...

.

They have a responsibility to have hearings. If they don't they will feel the wrath of the American voter in November. Actually, I hope they don't. Then Trump, the nominee, will lose with a historical embarrassment, along with the Senate and a substantial number of GOP House members. McConnell is a HUGE JOKE!

 

[defcon4]

What I don't understand is why Mitch McConnell made it clear that the Senate will not consider Obama's nomination, no matter who he nominates.. He could of just said after the Senate receives the president's nomination the Senate will give it due consideration and then just tie it up in committee. Why force Republicans to explain to voters for next 10 mos. why their senators who are being paid over $175,000/yr are not doing their job.

Uh…how about Reid tying things up for years? oh… that's in the past, let's not talk about it, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

Libs are funny. "When we block justice appointments it's warranted and our duty". " When republicans get the chance to do same.... They should reconsider for the good of the country".


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Where have Liberals ever blocked SCOTUS appointments where they wouldn't allow a President to make ANY appointment?

 

[rightwinger]

.
the republicans are so corrupt they believe it is their decision whether to have hearings after a nomination is made to the Supreme Court ...

.

They have a responsibility to have hearings. If they don't they will feel the wrath of the American voter in November. Actually, I hope they don't. Then Trump, the nominee, will lose with a historical embarrassment, along with the Senate and a substantial number of GOP House members. McConnell is a HUGE JOKE!

Its not that McConnell is a joke....he is a political moron

You don't state the REAL reason you are blocking appointments
The man was barely cold and McConnell laid down the gauntlet to say don't even bother to try to replace him, we won't allow it
He has boxed his party in so that their motives are now on the record
They will now have to approve someone