Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[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 ?

.

No -- Ginsburg wasn't with him

.

Scalia's Host at Ranch Had Case Before Supreme Court

Scalia's Host at Ranch Had Case Before Supreme Court

"He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others," Poindexter tells the Post. The reason for the newspaper's inquiry? Poindexter owns the manufacturing firm J.B. Poindexter & Co., and the Supreme Court declined to hear an age-discrimination case last year against one of the company's subsidiaries.

that's right, republicans are a breed apart from everyone else if they can't be bought Mitch O'Connell et all want nothing to do with them ...

.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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!

Deaddog breath fancies itself a "Constitutional scholar"

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Larry Flynt on Antonin Scalia’s death: ‘It couldn’t have happened to a nicer person’

 

[Rustic]

Larry Flynt on Antonin Scalia’s death: ‘It couldn’t have happened to a nicer person’

Flynt a pillar of goodness... Lol

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Flynt a pillar of goodness... Lol

Scalia deader than "a broke dick dog" LOL

 

[Faun]

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.

By a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents of a Rasmussen poll feel the Senate should have an up/down vote on every candiate the president nominates...

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™

... and since that's a poll of likely voters, it looks like Republicans are on the losing side of this dilemma with an election coming up.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

By a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents of a Rasmussen poll feel the Senate should have an up/down vote on every candiate the president nominates...

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™

... and since that's a poll of likely voters, it looks like Republicans are on the losing side of this dilemma with an election coming up.

That idiot is as likely as not to come back claiming you're wrong with some off the wall BS then present a straw man with no relevance to what was written beforehand, coming or going. He's a jerk and a fraud. But you are absolutely correct and it blows his contrived crap out of the water!

 

[Flopper]

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.

Obama is playing it by the book and just doing his job as fast as possible which will leave more time for democrats to point to republican as obstructionist and not doing their duty. It may make a difference in a few Senate seats but other than that, I doubt it will have much effect on the presidential election. Trump is such a wild card that if he makes it to the presidency, he just might not give the senate the kind of candidate they want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

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

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

How about focusing on the actual issue instead of running away from it? Since Democrats DID shut down the confirmation process, why is it now unacceptable for Republicans to do so? I know you want to make everything about your side being pure as the driven snow the eeeeeeevil Republicans always having to be on the defensive and answer your inquisitions, but I don't play that game. I'll address your hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky, "oh my God, I WISH this would happen" fantasy question when YOU have addressed the reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

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

Disingenous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"cecilia you're breaking my heart"

Do you have trouble reading? Need new bifocals? My name is Cecilie, not Cecilia.

 

[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.


>>>>

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

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

You are correct. The Constitution says the President has to get the Senate's consent. Nowhere does it say the Senate has to give it.

And the rules of the Senate - as the Constitution specifically provides for the Senate to set - say that the leadership of the Senate gets to decide what does and doesn't get addressed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

As it happens, their job IS to block Court nominees they think are unsuitable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 job of the senate is to confirm or deny SCOTUS appointments sent to it by the president. Kissing Obama's ass is not its job. If they kiss his ass they will be elected out. If they do their job the GOP will retain control and President Trump will appoint the next SCOTUS judge.

More to the point, their job is to represent the people of the United States of America. And demanding that, under the circumstances, the people themselves be given the chance to weigh in on what sort of Justice they want fits into that job very well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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.

Actually, it appears that "fuck them all" is the driving force in the electorate right now, and politicians ignore that at their own peril.

 

[eddiew]

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

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

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

Disingenous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"cecilia you're breaking my heart"

Do you have trouble reading? Need new bifocals? My name is Cecilie, not Cecilia.

you're still breaking my heart .....

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

How about focusing on the actual issue instead of running away from it? Since Democrats DID shut down the confirmation process, why is it now unacceptable for Republicans to do so?

Your drug induced hallucinations are noted, but it's Republicans saying they are shutting down the confirmation process until the next president, which they're counting on being a Republican, is elected.

I know you want to make everything about your side being pure as the driven snow the eeeeeeevil Republicans always having to be on the defensive and answer your inquisitions, but I don't play that game. I'll address your hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky, "oh my God, I WISH this would happen" fantasy question when YOU have addressed the reality.

Never said I wish it would happen. That's just more of your drug induced hallucinations.

At any rate, you've made it clear you are going to run from my question and never return to it; so ... c'est la vie.

 

[Faun]

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.

As it happens, their job IS to block Court nominees they think are unsuitable.

You're brain-dead. It's like you don't even know what the argument is about. That is not what Republicans said they are going to do. They said suitability isn't even a factor. They are rejecting anyone Obama puts up, sight unseen.

In a Rasmussen poll, 58% to 21% say every nominee put up by a president should get an up/down vote.

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[mamooth]

Since Democrats DID shut down the confirmation process, why is it now unacceptable for Republicans to do so?

Because Democrats didn't do it. You're revising history to justify your side's unprecedented partisan hackery.

If you claim otherwise, please inform us which Republican nominees were not brought to vote because Democrats blocked them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes indeed

that is why they are called the "leadership"

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


>>>>

it certainly does

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

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


>>>>

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

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

You are correct. The Constitution says the President has to get the Senate's consent. Nowhere does it say the Senate has to give it.

And the rules of the Senate - as the Constitution specifically provides for the Senate to set - say that the leadership of the Senate gets to decide what does and doesn't get addressed.

exactly

by the laws the senate has set for itself

as the Constitution specifies

 

[JimH52]

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.

As it happens, their job IS to block Court nominees they think are unsuitable.

Really? Even as "three chin" McConnell announces he won't even hold a hearing? You call that OBSTRUCTION and you call that PARTY OVER COUNTRY.
Pretty clear that the GOP hates America.