CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[Martin Eden Mercury]

No President could do what is argued in the op, without being impeached by the Congress

Being impeached isn't much of a concern, particularly for a President whose second term is about to end anyway. Being convicted after having been impeached is something of a concern, but what are they going to do other than throw him out of office? So what? A President can choose to "fall on his sword" as well as anyone else. That's just another good reason, IMO, for there not to be Presidential term limits.

Actually, impeachment proceedings would keep them from doing most anything else. A lame duck President with a year left in his or her term, would be so tied up it with legal maneuvers, it may as well function as a removal from office

Well, what they hell are they doing anyway? It's not like they are so busy passing legislation or holding hearings on Presidential nominees.

At this point in Mr. Obama's Presidency and the election cycle, all the Representatives are or will be staging their reelection campaigns, and one third of the Senators will be doing the same. If they are willing to put their focus on trying to impeach and convict a President who's leaving office in less than a year and can't run again anyway, let them.

Given the current state of the senate election map, GOP Senators, and the GOP overall, have more to lose by getting tied up in an impeachment/trial.

You miss the point.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

People could make an argument that the President should be able to dissolve the Congress and hold new elections. It is simply an argument. No President could do what is argued in the op, without being impeached by the Congress, or having to declare martial law. And good luck with martial law.

I don't see enough courage and leadership from the Republican controlled congress to bring about an impeachment. They get out maneuvered by the Dems at every turn.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have no doubt Obama will pursue every avenue to pack the SC with his third Leftist judge. He is all about his legacy and turning the Supreme Court into a Liberal Law rubber stamp mill would be the ultimate achievement for this anti-American subversive. He won't let trivialities like the Constitution get in his way.

Nor will he get any significant resistance from the GOP, who are long on bloviation and short on any action that requires leadership and courage.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

People could make an argument that the President should be able to dissolve the Congress and hold new elections. It is simply an argument. No President could do what is argued in the op, without being impeached by the Congress, or having to declare martial law. And good luck with martial law.

I don't see enough courage and leadership from the Republican controlled congress to bring about an impeachment. They get out maneuvered by the Dems at every turn.

If Speaker Ryan even whispered the term impeachment, the House would all of a sudden have a single, unifying purpose.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

People could make an argument that the President should be able to dissolve the Congress and hold new elections. It is simply an argument. No President could do what is argued in the op, without being impeached by the Congress, or having to declare martial law. And good luck with martial law.

I don't see enough courage and leadership from the Republican controlled congress to bring about an impeachment. They get out maneuvered by the Dems at every turn.

If Speaker Ryan even whispered the term impeachment, the House would all of a sudden have a single, unifying purpose.

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

I doubt Ryan would, unless of course he saw some gain. Ryan undoubtedly, is a smart, calculating guy. But at times he has proven himself to be clueless, much like Newt

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

I doubt Ryan would, unless of course he saw some gain. Ryan undoubtedly, is a smart, calculating guy. But at times he has proven himself to be clueless, much like Newt

For sure, if you make enough decisions some will undoubtedly be wrong.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

I doubt Ryan would, unless of course he saw some gain. Ryan undoubtedly, is a smart, calculating guy. But at times he has proven himself to be clueless, much like Newt

For sure, if you make enough decisions some will undoubtedly be wrong.

Nice re-framing to suit an argument. There are errors and mistakes, and then there are errors and mistakes.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

I doubt Ryan would, unless of course he saw some gain. Ryan undoubtedly, is a smart, calculating guy. But at times he has proven himself to be clueless, much like Newt

For sure, if you make enough decisions some will undoubtedly be wrong.

Nice re-framing to suit an argument. There are errors and mistakes, and then there are errors and mistakes.

Im not really interested in debating the merits of every move these guys have made.

 

[Lilah]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

 

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

I saw the argument- and it is fascinating- and it would quickly reach the Supreme Court- which of course the new Justice would have to be recused- which would leave an even number of justices.

I don't think President Obama will do it though- too much of a distraction from the election.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You have a point. Ryan appears to be an actual leader, but not sure he would pick this fight in an election year. He will risk a voter backlash and loss of his speakership if the Dems take congress. That is a lot of political capital to gamble.

I doubt Ryan would, unless of course he saw some gain. Ryan undoubtedly, is a smart, calculating guy. But at times he has proven himself to be clueless, much like Newt

For sure, if you make enough decisions some will undoubtedly be wrong.

Nice re-framing to suit an argument. There are errors and mistakes, and then there are errors and mistakes.

Im not really interested in debating the merits of every move these guys have made.

Neither am I.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

If Obama says it was a mistake, and he does, is it your argument that for ideological purpose this time, you demand the right to commit the same mistake (for all elected Republican Senators) with the foresight that they will later rue the day they made it?

 

[320 Years of History]

You miss the point.

Well, that statement doesn't exactly help with getting it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

nope simply not the case

a prezbo can make a recess appointment

but it ends along with the presidency when it ends

It is bizarre that people don't know that political appointees only hold their posts until there is a new president.

What's bizarre is that some people don't know the difference between "political appointments" and "recess appointments".

Political appointments, approved by the Senate, expire with the Presidency unless the incoming President asks the person to continue, then their appointment does not expire. They remain in the same job.

Judicial appointments to the federal bench expire neither with the term of the President or the session of congress.

Recess appointments expire at the end of the current congressional session.

The three are not the same.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that if the Dems keep tossing the rules aside to do whatever they feel they want to, undermines the point of having rules, which is to settle disputes civilly and not resort to shooting each other in the streets, right?

I frankly don't care which party's Senators fail to carry out their duty. Impeach/charge all of them for whom it applies with dereliction of duty, Democrats and Republicans. I want a government that performs work, and the work of Congress is to compose, deliberate, and positively pass or not pass bills, acts and appointments. I may not agree on what they pass or don't pass, but I do expect them to vote on the stuff presented to them, most especially executive office appointments/nominations, because, among other things, those folks nominated have jobs that are not getting done, or not getting done as efficiently/effectively as they could be and that is an patently avoidable waste of my tax dollar.

The President is the only one who gets a "pocket veto." Why? Because Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

So how is the Majority Leader saying 'No!' not giving their answer to the consent requirement?

Only yeses count?

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

 

[Syriusly]

No fire, no smoke.

BHO would never do it.

If he did, SCOTUS would declare the action unconstitutional and refuse to seat the appointee.

Then both parties would impeach, try, and convict any president who tried such a thing.

Impeach him for what?

Congress would have to ignore the Constitution that you appear to think that they are defending in order to impeach a President for appointing a Supreme Court Justice.

The Constitution spells out the grounds for impeachment(treason, bribery, high crimes, misdemeanors)- just as it spells out that the President appoints Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate.

There would be a delicious irony in Congress impeaching a President for ignoring the Constitution- and ignoring the Constitution in doing so.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

Nothing I said was false.

• As I said-it is up to the Senate- not the majority leader.
• He shall have Power.....,and he shall nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ....Judges of the supreme Court
• One of the enumerated jobs of the Senate as shown above is to provide advice- and consent/denial of Justices- just as it is the job of the President to nominate and appoint justices.

 

[Syriusly]

It is bizarre that people don't know that political appointees only hold their posts until there is a new president.

Except a Supreme Court justice is not a political appointee- and can only be removed by impeachment.