SCOTUS Appointment

[Belsnickel]

(02-18-2016, 01:11 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It's going to be an interesting process.
Obama could do the smart thing and nominate a moderate or even slightly right leaning judge. Would be very hard to deny that for 11 months.
And that would be seen as a "unifying" act by him as he always likes to claim he is a unifying guy....

But...I don't know if his ego and determination to leave "his mark" will let him do anything but nominate a far left judge.

Lots of people thinking Sri Srinivasan will get the nod from Obama. Well respected and liked across party lines and was confirmed unanimously for the SCOTUS Farm Team (DC Court of Appeals). Honestly, it is the best move Obama could make. One, it shows rising above the political ideology. Two, since he was confirmed unanimously before it makes it difficult for the Senate to go through and not confirm him.

The only issue is that someone like Sri will likely not be in favor of being an essential sacrificial lamb to party politics.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(02-18-2016, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Lots of people thinking Sri Srinivasan will get the nod from Obama. Well respected and liked across party lines and was confirmed unanimously for the SCOTUS Farm Team (DC Court of Appeals). Honestly, it is the best move Obama could make. One, it shows rising above the political ideology. Two, since he was confirmed unanimously before it makes it difficult for the Senate to go through and not confirm him.

The only issue is that someone like Sri will likely not be in favor of being an essential sacrificial lamb to party politics.

It'd would be the smart thing to do.

Personally, I would rather take 11 months of undecided SC cases and hopefully get another conservative on the bench because I think the 4-4-1 ideal is best.
I think you will get the most best results with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 independent type.

[Belsnickel]

(02-18-2016, 01:47 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It'd would be the smart thing to do.

Personally, I would rather take 11 months of undecided SC cases and hopefully get another conservative on the bench because I think the 4-4-1 ideal is best.
I think you will get the most best results with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 independent type.

What's interesting is that it depends on who you ask as to whether Sri would make it 4-4-1 or whether he would make it 4-3-2. Roberts tends to befuddle people when they try to put a finger on him.

Also, I'm kind of looking forward to an 8 Justice bench for former Gov. McDonnell to face. But that's a Virginia matter. Honestly, I think he has a case and could win it, but I think he's a slime ball for other reasons and so if he gets a 4-4, which is highly likely, he goes to jail.

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I'll plead ignorance but when was the last time they just told a President "Sure, go ahead" or "No way" without having a vote?

Also I just came across this and figured I'd add it to this thread rather than start a new one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-obama-will-not-attend-justice-scalia-s-funeral-n520236

Not sure, but it's still not unconstitutional. Just ineffective. 

[fredtoast]

(02-17-2016, 05:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And? The Constitution doesn't say they need to hold a vote, just give their advice and consent. Mitch gave his advice "don't try it" and they're saying they won't consent. 

The appointment power given to the President is one of the "checks and balances" in the Constitution, and the Senate is clearly violating it by saying that they will refuse to appoint ANY judge nominated by the President.

The Senate can not just void a power granted by the Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(02-18-2016, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The appointment power given to the President is one of the "checks and balances" in the Constitution, and the Senate is clearly violating it by saying that they will refuse to appoint ANY judge nominated by the President.

The Senate can not just void a power granted by the Constitution.

They aren't voiding it. They are using one of their powers of check and balances. We can think it is a ridiculous move all we like, that doesn't mean there is anything legally wrong with what they are doing. The Constitution says the Senate must give consent. If they are going to act like children that's on them, and they will have to own those actions. But they can do what they are doing.

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The appointment power given to the President is one of the "checks and balances" in the Constitution, and the Senate is clearly violating it by saying that they will refuse to appoint ANY judge nominated by the President.

The Senate can not just void a power granted by the Constitution.

The Senate checks the power of the President by being required to approve any of his appointments. They're choosing to not approve any of them. They're not voiding his power to nominate.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 04:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Senate checks the power of the President by being required to approve any of his appointments. They're choosing to not approve any of them. They're not voiding his power to nominate.

They are voiding his power to appoint.  There is no other way to interpret it when they say they will not approve anyone that he nominates.

Based on your logic the Senate could completely eliminate the Supreme Court by refusing to ever confirm anyone until all remaining 8 are dead.  Is that how you think the framers intended it to work?

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't voiding it. They are using one of their powers of check and balances. We can think it is a ridiculous move all we like, that doesn't mean there is anything legally wrong with what they are doing. The Constitution says the Senate must give consent. If they are going to act like children that's on them, and they will have to own those actions. But they can do what they are doing.

(02-18-2016, 04:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Senate checks the power of the President by being required to approve any of his appointments. They're choosing to not approve any of them. They're not voiding his power to nominate.

(02-18-2016, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are voiding his power to appoint.  There is no other way to interpret it when they say they will not approve anyone that he nominates.

Based on your logic the Senate could completely eliminate the Supreme Court by refusing to ever confirm anyone until all remaining 8 are dead.  Is that how you think the framers intended it to work?

Agreed with Fred, by not approving anyone, they're nullifying the ability to appoint. Not by law or ordinance, but by deed.

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are voiding his power to appoint.  There is no other way to interpret it when they say they will not approve anyone that he nominates.

Based on your logic the Senate could completely eliminate the Supreme Court by refusing to ever confirm anyone until all remaining 8 are dead.  Is that how you think the framers intended it to work?

I don't see any of them trying to legally bar him from nominating. 

Also, nice extreme hypothetical there. The reality is the public would most likely vote them out of office if they did that. 

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 05:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see any of them trying to legally bar him from nominating. 

Also, nice extreme hypothetical there. The reality is the public would most likely vote them out of office if they did that. 

You'd think. Then again, my state keeps sending Mitch McConnell back. The same Mitch McConnell that brought an out of work miner to the SOTU address — and won the last election mostly due to painting his opponent as anti-coal — just a day or two after he personally asked (and got removed) a bi-partisan plan to fix miner pensions. But if you ask most of the coal workers, McConnell is still their guy.

So, no, Fred's hypothetical isn't that extreme when you consider the average voter would re-elect a potato if they thought it felt the same way they do.

[GMDino]

(02-18-2016, 05:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see any of them trying to legally bar him from nominating. 

Also, nice extreme hypothetical there. The reality is the public would most likely vote them out of office if they did that. 

Would they?

Isn't it something like a 95% re-election rate despite a 15% approval rating now?

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 05:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see any of them trying to legally bar him from nominating. 

They are not just barring him from nominating.  they are barring him from APPOINTING anyone.

(02-18-2016, 05:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, nice extreme hypothetical there. The reality is the public would most likely vote them out of office if they did that. 

How many will be voted out for blocking the President's Constitutionally-granted power to appoint (not nominate).

They have clearly said that they will not let him appoint ANYONE.  This is a clear violation of the Constitution.

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are not just barring him from nominating.  they are barring him from APPOINTING anyone.


How many will be voted out for blocking the President's Constitutionally-granted power to appoint (not nominate).

They have clearly said that they will not let him appoint ANYONE.  This is a clear violation of the Constitution.

"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"






He can nominate without their consent. He requires their consent to appoint. They're exercising their power, unless you're suggesting their confirmation power is only ceremonial. 

As it says, that appointment power comes BY and WITH the Senate and their advice and consent.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "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"






He can nominate without their consent. He requires their consent to appoint. They're exercising their power, unless you're suggesting their confirmation power is only ceremonial. 

You have to use a little logic here.  The Constitution creates a Supreme Court.  They gave the President(not the senate) the power to appoint Justices.  Why would they do that if they really didn't mean to give that power to the President?

There is no way you can read the Constitution to give the Senate the power to disband the Supreme Court by refusing all appointments.  That makes no sense at all.  You call that an extreme example, but that is exactly what you are claiming they have the power to do.

The constitution says the Court is supposed to exist and the President is the one who appoints the judges. The Senate is violating the Constitution by saying that the President can not appoint a justice.  There is no other logical way to look at it.  The Senate is blocking a power granted to the President by the Constitution.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2016, 07:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have to use a little logic here.  The Constitution creates a Supreme Court.  They gave the President(not the senate) the power to appoint Justices.  Why would they do that if they really didn't mean to give that power to the President?

There is no way you can read the Constitution to give the Senate the power to disband the Supreme Court by refusing all appointments.  That makes no sense at all.  You call that an extreme example, but that is exactly what you are claiming they have the power to do.

The constitution says the Court is supposed to exist and the President is the one who appoints the judges. The Senate is violating the Constitution by saying that the President can not appoint a justice.  There is no other logical way to look at it.  The Senate is blocking a power granted to the President by the Constitution.

Maybe we could get a ruling from SCOTUS about SCOTUS. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 05:34 PM)Benton Wrote: You'd think. Then again, my state keeps sending Mitch McConnell back. The same Mitch McConnell that brought an out of work miner to the SOTU address — and won the last election mostly due to painting his opponent as anti-coal — just a day or two after he personally asked (and got removed) a bi-partisan plan to fix miner pensions. But if you ask most of the coal workers, McConnell is still their guy.

So, no, Fred's hypothetical isn't that extreme when you consider the average voter would re-elect a potato if they thought it felt the same way they do.

So the fact that he uses typical political strategies to win support by supporting a local cause means voters will support him and everyone else if the Senate were to refuse to confirm any judges until all of them are dead?


Dude... come on.

[BmorePat87]

(02-18-2016, 07:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have to use a little logic here.  The Constitution creates a Supreme Court.  They gave the President(not the senate) the power to appoint Justices.  

I'm going to stop you right there. They gave him the independent power to nominate. It says as I quoted:

Quote:and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint 

So he appoints BY and WITH the consent of the Senate. His power to appoint comes from the consent of the Senate.

Quote:There is no way you can read the Constitution to give the Senate the power to disband the Supreme Court by refusing all appointments.  That makes no sense at all.  You call that an extreme example, but that is exactly what you are claiming they have the power to do.

I mean, they do have the power to refuse all nominees. The constitution clearly states that. Congress and the President have the power to pass a tax that takes away 99% of our income. Doesn't mean they will stay in office if any of this happens. 

Also, you can't tell me that the Senate saying we won't vote on a nominee until next year is the same thing as "we will not vote on any nominee until all 9 are dead". 

Quote:The constitution says the Court is supposed to exist and the President is the one who appoints the judges.

The Senate is violating the Constitution by saying that the President can not appoint a justice.  There is no other logical way to look at it.  The Senate is blocking a power granted to the President by the Constitution.

Your emotions are getting the best of you.

[*michaelsean*]

What if they didn't actually say it, but just voted down one after the other? After which no vote does it become unconstitutional?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(02-19-2016, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What if they didn't actually say it, but just voted down one after the other?  After which no vote does it become unconstitutional?

The arbitrary one someone on the left chooses....so probably the first.