Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[jillian]

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

Speak for yourself. You are not representing the American public at large. You are representing yourself and are a part of the American public. You are not representing most voters, you are representing yourself as a voter. Quit your demagoguery.

if he isn't representing more voters why do you keep losing national elections?

 

[defcon4]

if he isn't representing more voters why do you keep losing national elections?

I am not losing a darn thing darling.. that's an assumption on your part. National well being shouldn't be treated as a game and unfortunately it is treated as such by many...

 

[defcon4]

yeah you and "Deaddog" are a "couple of Einsteins" LOL

..never claimed to be. Don't be a sore loser....It's OK.... He beat your ass... but you still got a participation trophy out of it, no?

 

[eagle1462010]

The Pen and the Phone will not work this time.

The Senate has to approve with a vote to accept his nomination.

Put up a real Constitutional lawyer instead of another left leaning hack and they will accept the nomination.

If not, the Senate doesn't have to accept his nominations............His pen and a phone and/or stomping his feet doesn't change the rules.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

yeah you and "Deaddog" are a "couple of Einsteins" LOL

..never claimed to be. Don't be a sore loser....It's OK.... He beat your ass... but you still got a participation trophy out of it, no?

Yes sure sure commissioner he "kicked my ass" which is standard wing nut for "I have to say something"...LOl

 

[Faun]

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?

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

FWIW were Hilary Clinton to become president and the Republicans retain control of the Senate I'm pretty confident that the GOP would have NO problem if she refused to name a replacement until the day the Democrats retake the Senate which if they fail to do it in 2016 could be a long way off given who comes up in 2018 and the fact that the party of the President usually loses seats in the off year election as Obama has learned.

Too funny. Demented, but funny. You're talking about the same folks who spent tens of millions of dollars to investigate her role in Whitewater; and even reopened that investigation after it was first determined she had done nothing wrong. Eight investigations in Benghazi. If she were to try a stunt such as you suggest, the right would impeach her, have her criminally prosecuted, and handed over to ISIS.

 

[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.

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

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

FWIW were Hilary Clinton to become president and the Republicans retain control of the Senate I'm pretty confident that the GOP would have NO problem if she refused to name a replacement until the day the Democrats retake the Senate which if they fail to do it in 2016 could be a long way off given who comes up in 2018 and the fact that the party of the President usually loses seats in the off year election as Obama has learned.

Without Scalia, the court is much more liberal. So even if there is no appointment, democrats have the edge. However, the court will be subject to ties which can hurt both sides.

 

[Faun]

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?

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

FWIW were Hilary Clinton to become president and the Republicans retain control of the Senate I'm pretty confident that the GOP would have NO problem if she refused to name a replacement until the day the Democrats retake the Senate which if they fail to do it in 2016 could be a long way off given who comes up in 2018 and the fact that the party of the President usually loses seats in the off year election as Obama has learned.

Without Scalia, the court is much more liberal. So even if there is no appointment, democrats have the edge. However, the court will be subject to ties which can hurt both sides.

And 4-4 ties fall back to the decision of the lower courts, which Obama has stacked.

 

[Flopper]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

The constituttion doesn't place many time limits on congress. I guess the founders decided to leave that issue up to the voters..

The Senate has never taken longer than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination. On average, the Senate has taken 25 days to confirm or reject a nominee. It seems to me seriously disabling the court for a year or more might well be a problem for some republican Senators up for election. The lose of 4 republican senators and the Senate changes hands.

 

[Flopper]

Too Quick Out of the Gate?



TPM Alum Sahil Kapur has an interesting piece up this afternoon on what he calls growing signs of Republican division over Supreme Court tactics. It's a good piece and you should read it. I think it is right to note that 'tactics' is definitely the issue here. There's little reason to believe that there's any division on the goal of preventing Barack Obama from choosing Antonin Scalia's successor. The issue is whether the official position outlined by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is simply too brazen and unvarnished for some Republicans to sign on to - particularly swing state senators up for election in 2016.

Read More →

I got to thinking this AM about that very thingy about the 14 purple States and the nine GOP Senators up for reelection. I came up with this list.

1. Hoeven - ND
2. Johnson - WI
3.Blunt - MO
4. Kirk - IL
5. Coats - IN
6. Portman - OH
7. Toomey - PA
8. Rubio - FL
9. Ayotte - NH

If republicans lost 4 of these seats, they would be in trouble. Even the lost 2 or 3 seats would be bad. It's hard for a Senate majority leader to maintain a 100% control of the votes. There's often a couple of senators that vote against the party or abstain.

 

[deaddogseye]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

 

[deaddogseye]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

First thank you for your patience. It means so much to me.

My My such strong words. So tell me since you are such a Constitutional scholar if the Senate in its mandatory function of advise and consent advises the President that he must appoint another Scalia if he wants the appointment confirmed and if he follows the advice he will get his confirmation (they could even give him a list of names) is the President constitutionally obligated to do so? If he refuses who in your learned view does the Constitution require to back down?

Cant wait to hear this.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;
You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.
I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!
Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

First thank you for your patience. It means so much to me.

My My such strong words. So tell me since you are such a Constitutional scholar if the Senate in its mandatory function of advise and consent advises the President that he must appoint another Scalia if he wants the appointment confirmed and if he follows the advice he will get his confirmation (they could even give him a list of names) is the President constitutionally obligated to do so? If he refuses who in your learned view does the Constitution require to back down?

Cant wait to hear this.

You still don't understand the fucking process as outlined in Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, you dolt! The conditions you suggest would NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE CONCTITUTION you damned fool! Now piss off!

 

[BreezeWood]

I demand a full investigation concerning every detail of his last days!

That especially includes finding out exactly who he was traveling with on this luxury vacation, being that they're all suspects, and finding out who paid for his very expensive luxury private charter flight. We already know that a wealthy industrialist was paying for his resort stay.

(Ruh-roh. The conservatives are suddenly realizing that investigating his death would not be a good idea, being it would reveal just who Scalia was taking gift-bribes from, and just how much graft Scalia was taking in.)

.

That especially includes finding out exactly who he was traveling with on this luxury vacation, being that they're all suspects, and finding out who paid for his very expensive luxury private charter flight. We already know that a wealthy industrialist was paying for his resort stay.

fishy indeed, lets clear up the matter or have a view of what may have been the true Scalia republicans are more often than not guilty of - died while having an affair ?

.

 

[deaddogseye]

I demand a full investigation concerning every detail of his last days!

That especially includes finding out exactly who he was traveling with on this luxury vacation, being that they're all suspects, and finding out who paid for his very expensive luxury private charter flight. We already know that a wealthy industrialist was paying for his resort stay.

(Ruh-roh. The conservatives are suddenly realizing that investigating his death would not be a good idea, being it would reveal just who Scalia was taking gift-bribes from, and just how much graft Scalia was taking in.)

.

That especially includes finding out exactly who he was traveling with on this luxury vacation, being that they're all suspects, and finding out who paid for his very expensive luxury private charter flight. We already know that a wealthy industrialist was paying for his resort stay.

fishy indeed, lets clear up the matter or have a view of what may have been the true Scalia republicans are more often than not guilty of - died while having an affair ?

.

No -- Ginsburg wasn't with him

 

[deaddogseye]

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

First thank you for your patience. It means so much to me.

My My such strong words. So tell me since you are such a Constitutional scholar if the Senate in its mandatory function of advise and consent advises the President that he must appoint another Scalia if he wants the appointment confirmed and if he follows the advice he will get his confirmation (they could even give him a list of names) is the President constitutionally obligated to do so? If he refuses who in your learned view does the Constitution require to back down?

Cant wait to hear this.

You still don't understand the fucking process as outlined in Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, you dolt! The conditions you suggest would NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE CONCTITUTION you damned fool! Now piss off!

Except that they can happen and actually are happening right now.

So whats your answer to the question? Who has to give in such a stalemate?

 

[BluesLegend]

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

Speak for yourself. You are not representing the American public at large. You are representing yourself and are a part of the American public. You are not representing most voters, you are representing yourself as a voter. Quit your demagoguery.

if he isn't representing more voters why do you keep losing national elections?

Your man Obama is an accomplished liar that's why. The people figured it out in 2014 and bitch slapped the Democrats to punish him.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

First thank you for your patience. It means so much to me.

My My such strong words. So tell me since you are such a Constitutional scholar if the Senate in its mandatory function of advise and consent advises the President that he must appoint another Scalia if he wants the appointment confirmed and if he follows the advice he will get his confirmation (they could even give him a list of names) is the President constitutionally obligated to do so? If he refuses who in your learned view does the Constitution require to back down?

Cant wait to hear this.

You still don't understand the fucking process as outlined in Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, you dolt! The conditions you suggest would NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE CONCTITUTION you damned fool! Now piss off!

Except that they can happen and actually are happening right now.

So whats your answer to the question? Who has to give in such a stalemate?

 

[deaddogseye]

reading your response --who is slicing and dicing. Look, your arguments are perfectly fine POLITICAL arguments. Not legal ones or constitutionally based ones. The Republicans may well suffer electorally if they are viewed as obstructing or they may not. No one can tell, but that's politics

If you really think it through your position is untenable. So in working together is Obama constitutionally required not to nominate a liberal? Is he Constitutionally required to nominate someone who will maintain the current status of the court (ie another Scalia) since that will be and is the advice of the Senate? Of course he isn't.

The constitutional fact of the matter is that Supreme Court nominations are grounded in ultimate politics and ultimate hypocrisy (if the role were reversed each side would be saying what the other is right now). If the founders wanted the process not to be political as some contend they made one big ass mistake leaving it to a bunch of politicians.

Here is what the NY Times had to say under similar circumstances in 1984:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And of course Obama led a fillabuster against Alito which the White House says he now regrets. I bet he does as he should the nuclear option.

I didn't think you would assemble a coherent reply to a LEGAL argument. Rather, I was certain you would go for the deflection, such as flipping ends to accuse me of your idiocy as you actually did, fool!!

If applying the precise language of the Constitution to the issue with the logical interpretation is making a political argument in your mind, then God Bless the Simple and the Ignorant. But perhaps you just really don't understand things Constitutional in the first place and/or in the second your petty biases blind you displaying your actual dishonesty.

I don't give a rats ass what the NY Times wrote in 1984 or your false straw man comparisons re: Alito and McConnell. Those are examples of political arguments, idiot! In any case, it's not relevant to the current proposed actions of the GOP. I've been patient with you but you have proved to be just a fucking waste of time! If you have any more stupidity to spew, talk to the fucking hand, fool!

First thank you for your patience. It means so much to me.

My My such strong words. So tell me since you are such a Constitutional scholar if the Senate in its mandatory function of advise and consent advises the President that he must appoint another Scalia if he wants the appointment confirmed and if he follows the advice he will get his confirmation (they could even give him a list of names) is the President constitutionally obligated to do so? If he refuses who in your learned view does the Constitution require to back down?

Cant wait to hear this.

You still don't understand the fucking process as outlined in Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, you dolt! The conditions you suggest would NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE CONCTITUTION you damned fool! Now piss off!

Except that they can happen and actually are happening right now.

So whats your answer to the question? Who has to give in such a stalemate?

Aaahh no answer.

See below re the first poll on this issue. If these numbers are accurate and hold the issue is resolved -- the next president will replace Scalia your constitutional analysis notwithstanding.. Period

The country is split on how to handle the Supreme Court vacancy, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday. Forty-three percent of Americans believe the Senate should act this year on Obama's nominee; 42 percent favor waiting and letting his successor filling the opening; 15 percent have no opinion. President Obama has made clear that he expects the Senate hold a confirmation vote on his nominee.