Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[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.

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™

Suitability IS a factor. I know you want to believe this is all some personal vendetta against Obama, probably because he's black, but it's actually just that anyone he nominates is pretty much going to be unsuitable, just by virtue of being desirable to Obama. He's made his agenda and his priorities all too clear, and his arrogant dismissal of any need to work with or compromise with Republicans/conservatives has been amply evident.

Now, Senate Republican leadership being the spineless squishes that they are, they'd very likely cave and give a hearing and even a vote to a nominee who could be seen as even marginally "compromise", whatever their constituents wanted. They've proven themselves amazingly and consistently tone-deaf on that score. But I think Obama is too proud and too locked into the view of himself as a modern-day Henry VIII or some such to ever consider putting forward such a candidate.

 

[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.

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.

No, YOU call it that, because it's not YOUR people doing it. If it was Senate Democrats doing it, you'd call it "principled statesmanship".

 

[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™

Suitability IS a factor. I know you want to believe this is all some personal vendetta against Obama, probably because he's black, but it's actually just that anyone he nominates is pretty much going to be unsuitable, just by virtue of being desirable to Obama. He's made his agenda and his priorities all too clear, and his arrogant dismissal of any need to work with or compromise with Republicans/conservatives has been amply evident.

Now, Senate Republican leadership being the spineless squishes that they are, they'd very likely cave and give a hearing and even a vote to a nominee who could be seen as even marginally "compromise", whatever their constituents wanted. They've proven themselves amazingly and consistently tone-deaf on that score. But I think Obama is too proud and too locked into the view of himself as a modern-day Henry VIII or some such to ever consider putting forward such a candidate.

Playing the race card doesn't help the lunacy you post.

Doesn't help your cognitive abilities either which fail to comprehend that by dismissing Obama's all of nominees before he even names them eliminates any and all consideration of suitability.

 

[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.

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™

Suitability IS a factor. I know you want to believe this is all some personal vendetta against Obama, probably because he's black, but it's actually just that anyone he nominates is pretty much going to be unsuitable, just by virtue of being desirable to Obama. He's made his agenda and his priorities all too clear, and his arrogant dismissal of any need to work with or compromise with Republicans/conservatives has been amply evident.

Now, Senate Republican leadership being the spineless squishes that they are, they'd very likely cave and give a hearing and even a vote to a nominee who could be seen as even marginally "compromise", whatever their constituents wanted. They've proven themselves amazingly and consistently tone-deaf on that score. But I think Obama is too proud and too locked into the view of himself as a modern-day Henry VIII or some such to ever consider putting forward such a candidate.

Playing the race card doesn't help the lunacy you post.

Doesn't help your cognitive abilities either which fail to comprehend that by dismissing Obama's all of nominees before he even names them eliminates any and all consideration of suitability.

Sorry, Chuckles, but pointing out an obsession with playing the race card is not in itself playing the race card. It's just observing reality.

And for the record, your little tactic only works on people who a) are the least bit sensitive to accusations involving race, and b) give a tin shit about your opinion. In me, you have the wrong woman on both counts.

Furthermore, no one believes that you were ever going to consider the possibility of suitability as a factor no matter what happens, so you can stop wasting time trying to blow smoke up my ass.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

That is Class A, No. 1, unadulterated HORSESHIT!

You need to read, along with many of your uninformed brethren, Article I § 5 Clause 2 and Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution. The former is Senate's requirement to establish their rules for conducting Senate business as established in that Article and the Second states one of the responsibilities the Senate SHALL carry out.

Refusing to conduct their "advise and consent" role through their rules for the Senate Judiciary Committee, established under Senate rule XXV, along with the body at large for an up or down vote of a nominee would be an abrogation of their oath of office, a violation of the Constitution and an impeachable offense. So do you, your brethren and the Senate wish to collectively wipe your asses with shreds of the Constitution and continue to openly display your contempt for the rule of law? Let me guess..............................YUP, because you're just following the piper down the lane!

 

[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.

That is Class A, No. 1, unadulterated HORSESHIT!

You need to read, along with many of your uninformed brethren, Article I § 5 Clause 2 and Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution. The former is Senate's requirement to establish their rules for conducting Senate business as established in that Article and the Second states is one of the responsibilities the Senate SHALL carry out.

Refusing to conduct their "advise and consent" role through their rules for the Senate Judiciary Committee, established under Senate rule XXV, along with the body at large for an up or down vote of a nominee would be an abrogation of their oath of office, a violation of the Constitution and an impeachable offense. So do you, your brethren and the Senate wish to collectively wipe your asses with shreds of the Constitution and continue to openly display your contempt for the rule of law? Let me guess..............................YUP, because you're just following the piper down the lane!

The GOP has become a Professional Obstructionist Organized Program. Or as it is knows....POOP

Yup, you heard it here first. THE GOP IS POOP!

 

[Faun]

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™

Suitability IS a factor. I know you want to believe this is all some personal vendetta against Obama, probably because he's black, but it's actually just that anyone he nominates is pretty much going to be unsuitable, just by virtue of being desirable to Obama. He's made his agenda and his priorities all too clear, and his arrogant dismissal of any need to work with or compromise with Republicans/conservatives has been amply evident.

Now, Senate Republican leadership being the spineless squishes that they are, they'd very likely cave and give a hearing and even a vote to a nominee who could be seen as even marginally "compromise", whatever their constituents wanted. They've proven themselves amazingly and consistently tone-deaf on that score. But I think Obama is too proud and too locked into the view of himself as a modern-day Henry VIII or some such to ever consider putting forward such a candidate.

Playing the race card doesn't help the lunacy you post.

Doesn't help your cognitive abilities either which fail to comprehend that by dismissing Obama's all of nominees before he even names them eliminates any and all consideration of suitability.

Sorry, Chuckles, but pointing out an obsession with playing the race card is not in itself playing the race card. It's just observing reality.

And for the record, your little tactic only works on people who a) are the least bit sensitive to accusations involving race, and b) give a tin shit about your opinion. In me, you have the wrong woman on both counts.

Furthermore, no one believes that you were ever going to consider the possibility of suitability as a factor no matter what happens, so you can stop wasting time trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Yes, it is playing the race card when the race card had not been played previously. I understand as a conservative, you reject taking ownership for your bullshit hallucination, but it is what it is.

I wouldn't go near your diseased ass with a ten foot pole, no less blow smoke up it. Regardless of your inclinations, there's no possibility to consider suitability when all nominees are rejected without even knowing who the nominees are. It's no one else's fault you are such a demented bitch that you're simply not capable of comprehending the dynamics involved.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

 

[deaddogseye]

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.

That is Class A, No. 1, unadulterated HORSESHIT!

You need to read, along with many of your uninformed brethren, Article I § 5 Clause 2 and Article II § 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution. The former is Senate's requirement to establish their rules for conducting Senate business as established in that Article and the Second states one of the responsibilities the Senate SHALL carry out.

Refusing to conduct their "advise and consent" role through their rules for the Senate Judiciary Committee, established under Senate rule XXV, along with the body at large for an up or down vote of a nominee would be an abrogation of their oath of office, a violation of the Constitution and an impeachable offense. So do you, your brethren and the Senate wish to collectively wipe your asses with shreds of the Constitution and continue to openly display your contempt for the rule of law? Let me guess..............................YUP, because you're just following the piper down the lane!

So if its an impeachable offense who is it under your view of the Constitution who would hear and decide on the removal of a majority of the US Senate. Last time I looked it was the senate that conducted impeachment trials. So they are going to impeach themselves.

And technically it isn't impeachment when a Senator is involved its removal under Article 1 Section 5 which also would have to be done by the Senate. The house once tried to impeach a Senator but the Senate rejected it and removed the guy under their own authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 5

And impeachment under the constitution is expressly for treason bribery and High Crimes and misdomeanors. So I don't think its going to happen

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

 

[Flopper]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

yes yet most people are not that political and really care all that much about how the sausage is made

maybe if the left can shake up the hive enough perhaps then

but again when the hive is shook both right and left bees get excited

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

 

[Faun]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.

No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.

Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

When has the left EVER wanted the voters to decide anything?

 

[Faun]

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.

No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.

Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?

The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.

And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.

 

[Faun]

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

When has the left EVER wanted the voters to decide anything?

You're fucking demented. Democrats wants the electorate to come out and decide. The more people come out to vote, the better Democrats do in elections.

 

[Faun]

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.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?

seems like the left is afraid letting the voters decide

That's because the voters already decided. The right is trying to change the rules and say no longer can a current president pick a replacement justice if the Senate so chooses.