Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[boedicca]

And, LITERALLY, more VPOTUS Wisdom:

Mr. Biden even said the Senate’s decision shouldn’t depend on the merits of a particular nominee. The inconveniences of a High Court with only eight Justices “are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President,” he said.

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

 

[Grizz]

This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.

June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.

Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?

The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

 

[Faun]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

 

[Grizz]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Uh. WTF do you think CONSENT means? The Senate has the Power To Say No, or just to do nothing. There is nothing in the President's ability to nominate that obligates the Senate to do anything at all.

That is a form of power. You know, like the power a female has when she refuses to engage in carnal relations with you (clearly something you endure on a frequent basis).

The Senate has the Constitutional authority to say no to nominees. The Senate does not have the Constitutional authority to say no to the confirmation process.

BZZZZZZTTTTTTT. You lose. The Senate has the power to Do Nothing At All.

Only in regard to deny nominees. Not to deny a president who has the Constitutional obligation to fill the seat.

 

[Faun]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

You should take careful notice that I didn't use the word, "nominate."

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.

June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.

Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?

The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

 

[Grizz]

This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.

June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.

Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?

The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

 

[boedicca]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

Yes. But his Nomination of someone places absolutely ZERO obligation on the Senate to do anything at all.

 

[Grizz]

You Lefty's better start freaking out now, the Right is having record breaking turn outs, the Left is suffering through large turn out deficits.

You folks should be concerned about coat tails at this point.

Hillary cannot win unless the entire election is rigged.

 

[Grizz]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

Yes. But his Nomination of someone places absolutely ZERO obligation on the Senate to do anything at all.

Which is just as I have been saying.

 

[Faun]

This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.

June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.

Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?

The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

 

[Grizz]

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

 

[Grizz]

As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.

Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

....uh you do know Kennedy is Repub disaster, right?

 

[Faun]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

Yes. But his Nomination of someone places absolutely ZERO obligation on the Senate to do anything at all.

Well there's your opinion ... but then there's the Constitution...

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.

I look forward to your explanation how the Senate can do "nothing" when the Constitution says the president, "with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...."

No matter how hard I look, I can't find where it says the Senate doesn't have to "advise and consent."

 

[Grizz]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

Yes. But his Nomination of someone places absolutely ZERO obligation on the Senate to do anything at all.

Well there's your opinion ... but then there's the Constitution...

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.

I look forward to your explanation how the Senate can do "nothing" when the Constitution says the president, "with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...."

No matter how hard I look, I can't find where it says the Senate doesn't have to "advise and consent."

Sure thing kid, show us where the Constitution spells out the timing.......c'mon.....kid.

 

[Faun]

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

 

[Faun]

And LITERALLY from the VPOTUS:

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Mr. Biden spoke on the Senate floor the day before the Supreme Court was set to leave for recess. George H.W. Bush was President, Democrats controlled the Senate and they were worried that a Justice might resign before the election.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Mr. Biden declared. And if the President were to plow ahead and name a new Justice anyway, “a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee or to the Senate itself.”

Mr. Biden added that the Senate would have to fulfill its own constitutional duty of advice and consent, but that could mean withholding consent when it believed doing so was in the best interests of the Court and the country. “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,” Mr. Biden said, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Advice

So another example of where a president was NOT denied their Constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Unlike what Republican leadership is saying now, that this president will not get to appoint a replacement.

Thanks for playin'.

UGH, kid?

He gets to "nominate" someone.

Yes. But his Nomination of someone places absolutely ZERO obligation on the Senate to do anything at all.

Well there's your opinion ... but then there's the Constitution...

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.

I look forward to your explanation how the Senate can do "nothing" when the Constitution says the president, "with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...."

No matter how hard I look, I can't find where it says the Senate doesn't have to "advise and consent."

Sure thing kid, show us where the Constitution spells out the timing.......c'mon.....kid.

You do understand the meaning of the word, "with," don't you?? I know you were easily confused earlier between the words, "appoint" and "nominate," but "with" too?

"With" means when the president nominates someone.

 

[Faun]

And that is the whole thing. Interview, cajole, lecture, get mad, trash someone, but you have to vote someone in. That is the line Republicans are about to cross. The line where a political party says "we don't recognize the authority of the Constitution in forcing the Senate to pick someone we don't want based on who is president". This will turn into a Constitutional crisis if this is the thought.

The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine.

But saying they aren't going to fulfill the Constitutional requirement, and YES that includes approving SOMEONE, then they are in essence saying "our agreement to live by this document has run its course, we follow only or party's best interest now, even at the expense of the Constitution."

I don't think they've thought it through, this IS a gigantic moment on whether this democracy continues on as is. THAT is how fragile a democracy is.

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

....uh you do know Kennedy is Repub disaster, right?

Irrelevant since a) no one knows at the time a justice is confirmed how they will perform; b) he was nominated by Reagan; and c) his performance is your opinion.

What else ya got besides admitting that Democrats confirmed a Republican president's nominee during an election year after you claimed Democrats would do the same as some Republicans are now planning and I showed you they didn't?

 

[Grizz]

"The senate has to approve someone. It will likely be a moderate which is fine."

In their own time, not Obama's.

Then as I said, the democracy is compromised. The Democrats will stall all Republican nominees in kind and refuse, as have the Republicans, to allow a Republican president to accomplish anything via Congress.


Republicans are so blind with hatred they are willing to do this? Then get to it. And no bitching later.

Oh stop whining.

There is NO Constitutional requirement for the Senate to take it up right away.

If you think the Dems would if the situation were reversed then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year.

But more to your claim that the Senate can act on their own time .... let's say Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate .... I take it you're ok then if Democrats shut down the confirmation process until Trump is out of office, even if that takes 4, maybe 8, years?

Unlike the Left I fully understand that this sword swings both ways.

You better pay attention to turn out though, it does NOT look good right now.

Given every poll out on this issue indicates the public does not want the Senate to reject considering every one of Obama's nominees, it seems it doesn't look good for this GOP ploy to shut down the confirmation process.

Nothing spells out the timing son, and given you have Schumer and Biden both on record as trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year...well....you lose.