CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[Martin Eden Mercury]

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use -- other than blogs and right wing news sites?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?

Now you are dissembling. You are ignoring the facts.

have a nice day

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?.

We are in the CD zone. I edited my comment out. I suggest you do too. Respect

What is a CD zone?

Just go back and delete the personal insult "dumb"

we all make errors.

 

[Lilah]

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use -- other than blogs and right wing news sites?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?

Now you are dissembling. You are ignoring the facts.

have a nice day

How am I ignoring history?

 

[Lilah]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?.

We are in the CD zone. I edited my comment out. I suggest you do too. Respect

What is a CD zone?

Just go back and delete the personal insult "dumb"

we all make errors.

It was your personal choice to attack me, and now you are attacking me again. Yes, we all make mistakes, but some of us learn from them.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?

Now you are dissembling. You are ignoring the facts.

have a nice day

How am I ignoring history?

You first mentioned history somehow backing you up.

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?​

"the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

What is a CD zone?

CD = Clean Debate zone.

There are special requirements that are stickied at the top of the form section.

Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum


>>>>

 

[320 Years of History]

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

I don't know what the CRS records show as you've not given us a link to them, but according to the U.S. Senate itself, since 1987 there has not been one SCOTUS nomination on which no action was taken. The last such case of that occurred in November of 1954 with Justice Harlan II who was in January 1955 confirmed to the very vacancy for which he was nominated in 1954.

Looking further back in time, one will find that before Justice Harlan II, the same pattern non-action and subsequent confirmation occurred in Late November 1922 and December 1922 and with Justice Hornblower in 1893, though the pattern was the same, the outcome for him was rejection by 24-30 vote. Going farther back, the non-action -->confirmation pattern resumes with Justice Matthews in 1881.

Prior to that, Atty Gen. Stanbery's nomination was not considered; however, the man had just finished defending President Johnson in 1868 at his impeachment trial. Johnson nominated Stanbery to the SCOTUS in April 1868 after he'd garnered Johnson a one vote acquittal in the Senate. Moreover, Stanbery was in such poor health during the trial that he had to submit his arguments in writing, being so bad off that he was not able to physically stand and represent his client. That's really saying something for an attorney. It's no wonder, between the bitter battle he'd just won by one vote combined with his poor health, that the Senate didn't consider his nomination.

There have been two other thoroughly unconsidered nominations. When did they occur? All within less than 20 years prior to the commencement of the Civil War.

What does that track record tell us?

• It tells us that from just after the end of the Civil War to the present, only one SCOTUS nominee has actually just flat out not been considered and given a "yay" or "nay" vote, be it by roll call or by voice.
• It tells us that only just before and just after the schism that rent the nation has any SCOTUS nominee not actually been given a vote if/when that nominee's name was not withdrawn

Note:
"Declined" in the chart you'll find at the link above indicates the nominee refused to accept the nomination, be it to the Court or to a higher position on it; however, the President did indeed submit the man's name to the Senate for consideration.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You're starting a thread referencing an article that you do not provide a link to?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

Never thought I'd be quoting Sarah Palin to make a credible and valid point "Lipstick on a pig"

Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
― Ann Richards​

Well, the following should abate your embarrassment at having thought you did. Alas, Ms. Palin is but one of several plagiarists of that phrase.

The concept is an old one. Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."

The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, The Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."

Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.

Since then, "lipstick on a pig" has spiced up the political verbiage of everyone from Charlie Rangel to Dick Cheney. John McCain used it last year to describe Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. And even though the folksy expression is one that sounds old (and connects back to genuinely old proverbs), it's not quite the vintage of anyone's grandfather's grandfather.
-- Source: Where does the expression "lipstick on a pig" come from?​

I was surprised to find all that much about the saying. What I knew upon reading your remark above is that you truly need not rue that Sarah Palin used it before you. Perhaps more disconcerting to you (but most likely not) is that I, like the Southern members of my family, have been saying that since the 1970s. On the up side, anyone should be thrilled to quote Ann Richards. That firebrand of a woman had among the most charming personalities in politics. Now there was a straight talkin' politician.

After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.
― Ann Richards


​

 

[JimBowie1958]

Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

Having said "no," why not put the nomination to a floor vote and let the Senators vote "yay" or "nay" as befits each of them? Bork got that much, even though the majority voted "nay." Let the suckers sitting now do the same.

Because they have no obligation to do so. Why do you think that they are compelled to waste the Senates time with an already rejected nomination?

Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case

He isn't politicizing anything. The man is required Constitutionally to nominate someone. He did.

It is not the mere nomination itself that is the politicization, but the fact that he wont withdraw the nomination in the face of the Senate leaderships rejection of it. Previously the Senates rejection by the leadership would have resulted in a withdrawn nomination, but Obama is being the Chicago Democrat that he is and trying to finangle the GOP into a vote anyway.

Many nominations have 'died' in committee

Well, fine. Let them vote in committee against Justice Garland just as the Democrat majority committee did for Bork and scores of other nominees who were rejected.

No, they dont have to as they have already delivered their answer; No!

 

[there4eyeM]

A link to the Washington Post? That is necessary?

 

[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.

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.

When the Senate acts as a body, it can take many paths to act.

One such path is that the majority party leadership simply says no, bit me and the President needs to find a new nominee, as if Obama really was trying to get one passed in the Senate anyway.

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

Now if you want to change the Constitution so that it reads 'with the advise and consent of the Senate Majority leader'- well then the rest of the Senate would no longer have to be involved.

The Majority Leader of the Senate has the power and authority to act for the entire Senate in multiple ways and this is one of them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.


>>>>

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

...a thought which inspires the question, "Should Senators refrain from doing their job in the last year or part thereof of their terms?" I wager Senators don't think so. LOL

They did their job; how do you suppose that they have not?

Are they obligated in your view to vote on every nominee? That has never been the case and a huge number of nominations have been withdrawn without even a committee vote.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?

Now you are dissembling. You are ignoring the facts.

have a nice day

How am I ignoring history?

You first mentioned history somehow backing you up.

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?​

"the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?"

So what? Obama still established the record of what he has done, and he cannot rationally now complain of the same treatment whether he had done a million mea culpas or not.

 

[Lilah]

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

Never thought I'd be quoting Sarah Palin to make a credible and valid point "Lipstick on a pig"

Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
― Ann Richards​

Well, the following should abate your embarrassment at having thought you did. Alas, Ms. Palin is but one of several plagiarists of that phrase.

The concept is an old one. Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."

The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, The Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."

Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.

Since then, "lipstick on a pig" has spiced up the political verbiage of everyone from Charlie Rangel to Dick Cheney. John McCain used it last year to describe Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. And even though the folksy expression is one that sounds old (and connects back to genuinely old proverbs), it's not quite the vintage of anyone's grandfather's grandfather.
-- Source: Where does the expression "lipstick on a pig" come from?​

I was surprised to find all that much about the saying. What I knew upon reading your remark above is that you truly need not rue that Sarah Palin used it before you. Perhaps more disconcerting to you (but most likely not) is that I, like the Southern members of my family, have been saying that since the 1970s. On the up side, anyone should be thrilled to quote Ann Richards. That firebrand of a woman had among the most charming personalities in politics. Now there was a straight talkin' politician.

After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.
― Ann Richards


​

The old saying, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, originated from Stephen Gosson's book, The Ephemerides of Phialo, circa 1579.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why do you think that they are compelled to waste the Senates time with an already rejected nomination?

• Senators asked for votes and got what they asked for.
• Voters put them in office.
• Voters pay them to be in office.

That's what gives us the right to think they are compelled to do the damn job they've been sent there to do.

They can put the man's name before the whole Senate and any Senator or several of them can filibuster the nomination just as Obama did Justice Alito's nomination. That may be irksome, but it's at least consistent with how other modern justices have been treated.

Previously the Senate's rejection by the leadership would have resulted in a withdrawn nomination

Would it? That's certainly not what happened with the Bork nomination and you know as well as I do that Justice Bork didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting confirmed the instant his name was submitted.

 

[Lilah]

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.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

there has never been a senate that refused to hold hearings.

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

Although the president has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to take any particular action in any particular time frame on that nominee. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the upreme Court … .” Federalist Paper 67 makes it clear that the president and the Senate jointly hold the
appointment power, which is distinct from the power to nominate. This means the Senate is free to exercise its own power as it sees fit, to approve or reject a nominee, or not to act upon a nomination.

"judicial and other senior federal government positions".

again, never the supreme court.

and when you plagiarize nonsense from purported "sources", you should probably provide cites or you're violating copyright rules.

Fat chance I would plagiarize the Federalist Papers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do you think that they are compelled to waste the Senates time with an already rejected nomination?

• Senators asked for votes and got what they asked for.
• Voters put them in office.
• Voters pay them to be in office.

That's what gives us the right to think they are compelled to do the damn job they've been sent there to do.

They can put the man's name before the whole Senate and any Senator or several of them can filibuster the nomination just as Obama did Justice Alito's nomination. That may be irksome, but it's at least consistent with how other modern justices have been treated.

Most bills and nominees are not rejected in this way, but by simply not making it to the schedule of the Senate's calendar. This is exactly what happened to OBama's lame duck nomination this year.

Previously the Senate's rejection by the leadership would have resulted in a withdrawn nomination

Would it? That's certainly not what happened with the Bork nomination and you know as well as I do that Justice Bork didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting confirmed the instant his name was submitted.

No, the vote counters did not have a 100% certainty of defeating Bork, and many were surprised by his loss.

In any case, the Senate does not have to send this nomination to the Judiciary committee not now, not ever.

 

[Syriusly]

And as member of the GOP, I'm royally pissed that McConnell put us in this situation which will verly likely contribute to a Dem in the Oval Office nominating someone else into a Dem controlled Senate. All because of McConnell's big fucking mouth backing the Senate leadership into the corner.


>>>>

McConnell was appealing to the populists in the GOP- who wanted to see him taking strong and decisive inaction.

If he had just done what both parties normally due- which is just put off hearings and pretend that they were doing their job we wouldn't be having this conversation.

(like all of the other nominations on hold no one is talking about)