Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[boedicca]

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.

You clearly failed at Civics.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.

 

[boedicca]

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.

B'loney. You should try recalling HISTORY before spewing nonsense, but I suppose that is a futile hope...


Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 months in office. But there is so much more to recall:

• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.

Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.

The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.

• After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority.

This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. Obama was cheering him on all the way.

• Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”...


Greatest Democratic Judicial Hits

 

[Faun]

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.

You clearly failed at Civics.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.

Great, another demented rightie.

I never said the Senate has to approve whomever Obama puts up. I said it's unconstitutional to reject every nominee a president puts up with the intent of not letting the current president pick a replacement.

 

[Faun]

....

Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 months in office. But there is so much more to recall:

zero SC justices came up for consideration, 51 other federal justices were confirmed. Democrats did not shut down the confirmation process.

• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.

Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.

The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

zero SC justices came up for consideration, 93 other federal justices were confirmed. Democrats did not shut down the confirmation process.

• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.

Two SC seats opened up, both were confirmed. Democrats did not shut down the confirmation process.

• After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority.

This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. Obama was cheering him on all the way.

• Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”...

Greatest Democratic Judicial Hits

50 federal justices were confirmed. Democrats did not shut down the confirmation process.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, the Democrats are not the least bit interested in letting the people decide anything. This is why their primaries have super-delegates that supersede the popular vote entirely, why all their policy victories come through judicial fiats and executive orders, why they want to change their tune and now demand that the Constitution requires that the Senate rubberstamp judicial nominees.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, the Democrats are not the least bit interested in letting the people decide anything. This is why their primaries have super-delegates that supersede the popular vote entirely, why all their policy victories come through judicial fiats and executive orders, why they want to change their tune and now demand that the Constitution requires that the Senate rubberstamp judicial nominees.

The country already decided. You can deny that all you want, doesn't really matter.

 

[Faun]

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.

Actually, that's always been the rule. It's ALSO the procedure once advocated by the man NOW bitching and complaining because it's been turned back on him.

No, it's not always been the rule. There is no such rule. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

exactly look at how the democratic national convention

went when they voted Jerusalem out

then as not to offend forced a fake vote

putting it back in against the will of their peoples

 

[the_human_being]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

 

[Faun]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

 

[the_human_being]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

 

[Faun]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

This has nothing to do with recess appointments. Do you even know what this is about?

 

[peach174]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

 

[Faun]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

 

[peach174]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

 

[Nyvin]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?

 

[Faun]

S. Res 334 states that it was “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.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

 

[Faun]

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?

I've been asking that since this became an issue and have yet to get a single response to it...

 

[peach174]

... what do recess appointments have to do with the current situation...?

Well duhhh. The President cannot force Mitch McConnell to bring his SC nomination to the floor. His only real option might have been to make another unconstitutional recess appointment when Congress takes a recess.

Unless the Senate does a pro-forma session like the house did in 2011.

The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.

That is his right and duty to do so.
The Senate Majority also has the right to not bring it up or to vote against it.

The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.

Yes, I agree so the point is?