Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.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?
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?
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.
No but the court could.The Senate does not get to pick and choose which presidents get to appoint replacements.The Senate will be in session this week and I fully expect Obama to announce a nominee.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.
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.
True, the President has every right to submit his nominee's name to the Senate Majority Leader for a conformation vote. No President can tell the Senate Majority Leader when to bring anything at all to the floor of the Senate however.
The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.No they didn't, they said they would not confirm and that is their right.
And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?
It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.
That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?
I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.
Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
Very well stated! A tip of the tam to you!The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.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?
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?
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.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
I believe it's more about intent than it is time; though the more time that passes reveals their intent. Time is irrelevant now because they've already declared their intent.The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.
And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?
It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.
That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?
I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.
Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.Yes, they did say that. And you just said they don't get to pick and choose which presidents appoint replacements yet here you are defending their position. It's like you don't even comprehend the issue.
And why no answer to Nyvin's question. Since you support this bizarre notion that the Senate can prevent a president from appointing a replacement, why can't Democrats block the president from filling that seat until 2021 should a Republican win the presidency?
It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.
That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?
I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.
Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.
Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
That just goes to prove just how demented you are. You actually think it's ok for a Supreme Court seat to remain open for 4 years (or longer).Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.
4 years, that's what you're saying.Oh Brother 4 years?
and you call me demented.
The Senate leader put the timeline down when he said after the Nov. elections.
That just goes to prove just how demented you are. You actually think it's ok for a Supreme Court seat to remain open for 4 years (or longer).Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.
You don't even know the Constitution doesn't allow that. The Constitution say the President and the Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.
Now how does that square with your delusions?
Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...
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?
As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.
What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.
4 years, that's what you're saying.Oh Brother 4 years?
and you call me demented.
The Senate leader put the timeline down when he said after the Nov. elections.
And this session of the Senate is abrogating their Constitutional responsibilities by not appointing a replacement.
Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.What kind of precedent did the President set up from the start, when you call the opposite party the enemy and refuse to meet but just a very few times with the top leaders of both parties in his 7 years so far?
Most Presidents meet with them when they have differences of opinions to work things out, but he has not.
He has just let them duke it out.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.
there is no one "right of center" running for president.
but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.
Wow!
from the article - devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy.
He was one of the Judges who voted for freedom of speech for those who wanted to burn the Flag.
He didn't like it but he said it was their Constitutional right.
Oh, no! Your dementia worsens. Now we learn all this time you've been arguing this issue, you've been doing so from a standpoint of ignorance of the Constitution. You don't even know what it says.The Constitution says with the advise and consent.That just goes to prove just how demented you are. You actually think it's ok for a Supreme Court seat to remain open for 4 years (or longer).I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.
Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.
If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.
So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.
You don't even know the Constitution doesn't allow that. The Constitution say the President and the Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.
Now how does that square with your delusions?
No where does it say shall appoint Judges, it says he shall nominate.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Oh Brother 4 years?
and you call me demented.
The Senate leader put the timeline down when he said after the Nov. elections.
