Posts: 10,718
Threads: 63
Reputation:
57608
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 09:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.
Well, yeah.
In the end, what's it hurt him? If it gets him re-elected and if he can go back to his constituents and say 'I'll not let any liberal, coal-hating, gun- hating judge on that court,' they aren't going to care. They're going to send him back.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(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?
I don't know. We will deal with that when/if it ever happens.
For now they have made it clear that they will not agree to any nomination he makes.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 09:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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".
I can tell you that you are arguing that they have that power.
That is how I am proving that your interpretation can not be accepted. If your interpretation was accepted then the senate would have the power to eliminate the Supreme Court. And I do not think it is logical to interpret the Constitution that way.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 01:19 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: The arbitrary one someone on the left chooses....so probably the first.
Good thing we don't have to argue about it, isn't it?
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can tell you that you are arguing that they have that power.
That is how I am proving that your interpretation can not be accepted. If your interpretation was accepted then the senate would have the power to eliminate the Supreme Court. And I do not think it is logical to interpret the Constitution that way.
The President could also choose to never nominate one.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 01:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, yeah.
In the end, what's it hurt him? If it gets him re-elected and if he can go back to his constituents and say 'I'll not let any liberal, coal-hating, gun- hating judge on that court,' they aren't going to care. They're going to send him back.
If he were up for reelection this year, I imagine his base would love the fact that he is waiting 11 months for the next President. Do I think in this crazy extreme of them waiting for years for all 8 remaining ones to die that he will remain in power? No, or at least not enough Senators to allow this to continue.
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 02:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know. We will deal with that when/if it ever happens.
For now they have made it clear that they will not agree to any nomination he makes.
Why can't we debate it now? Are you saying the mentioning of it constitutes the unconstitutionality?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can tell you that you are arguing that they have that power.
That is how I am proving that your interpretation can not be accepted. If your interpretation was accepted then the senate would have the power to eliminate the Supreme Court. And I do not think it is logical to interpret the Constitution that way.
Because they do.
Can the President appoint a Justice without the Senates's approval? No.
Does the Senate have to confirm a nominee if they don't agree with the President? No.
If they do not have the power to confirm appointments, why have they had to for the last 200 years? You're essentially arguing that it is ceremonial and the whole power is vested in the President. If the President nominates a justice, what happens? Do they become a justice? No.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 03:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why can't we debate it now? Are you saying the mentioning of it constitutes the unconstitutionality?
All I am saying is that is not what we are dealing with now. So we can discuss it if you want, but it does not pertain to what is happening now.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 03:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The President could also choose to never nominate one.
I give you rep for seeing the logic in this argument, but you are wrong.
The Constitution does not say the President "has the power to appoint" it says he "shall appoint". It would viloate the mandate of the Constitution for the President to refuse to appoint a Supreme court Justice.
The Constitution orders the president to appoint Supreme Court Judges. The Senate is trampling on the Constitution by denying him him the ability to do his job.
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
Fred, you're also missing the real issue:
What constitutes a recess. The real issue is the fact that Congress, when controlled by one party, can essentially never fully go into recess (more than 3 days), preventing recess appointments or the fail safe the founders added into the Constitution if the President saw none of his vacancies filled during the Senate's last session.
As Alito stated in the 9-0 decision against Obama's attempt at recess appointments in one of those 3 day periods, this recess power is something that is past its time.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 04:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Fred, you're also missing the real issue:
What constitutes a recess. The real issue is the fact that Congress, when controlled by one party, can essentially never fully go into recess (more than 3 days), preventing recess appointments or the fail safe the founders added into the Constitution if the President saw none of his vacancies filled during the Senate's last session.
As Alito stated in the 9-0 decision against Obama's attempt at recess appointments in one of those 3 day periods, this recess power is something that is past its time.
I am not talking about a recess appointment.
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I give you rep for seeing the logic in this argument, but you are wrong.
The Constitution does not say the President "has the power to appoint" it says he "shall appoint". It would viloate the mandate of the Constitution for the President to refuse to appoint a Supreme court Justice.
The Constitution orders the president to appoint Supreme Court Judges. The Senate is trampling on the Constitution by denying him him the ability to do his job.
Right, but there is no time limit.
But all this being said, I am in favor of the Senate making sure a person is qualified and doesn't have something in their past and then confirming then.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 3,029
Threads: 14
Reputation:
7162
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Right, but there is no time limit.
But all this being said, I am in favor of the Senate making sure a person is qualified and doesn't have something in their past and then confirming then.
Agreed. Seems some people only care about checks-and-balances when it's in their interest....otherwise OBSTRUCTION!!!!!
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Right, but there is no time limit.
But all this being said, I am in favor of the Senate making sure a person is qualified and doesn't have something in their past and then confirming then.
I agree 100% with this. What I don't agree with is the Senate saying they will not approve any of the President's appointments even if it is by far the best qualified person for the position.
(02-19-2016, 04:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Agreed. Seems some people only care about checks-and-balances when it's in their interest....otherwise OBSTRUCTION!!!!!
I agree with the Senate going through the vetting process to determine if a candidate is qualified. That is not obstruction. That is doing their job.
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(02-19-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not talking about a recess appointment.
No, but that's the tool that was put into the Constitution to get around the scenario you incorrectly believe to be unconstitutional. You're so lost that you aren't even looking at the right problem.
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
So the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are falling inline with the plan to not move on any nominee. They and McConnell have made it very clear they will not vote on any, and will likely not even meet with a nominee. The best move Obama can make right now is nominate a Scalia clone. I am okay with a split bench, so this bothers me none and it is a lose-lose situation for the Senate.
By not moving on such a nominee they would just make Obama and the left look more willing than them to reach across the aisle. If they move on the nominee then they show that their concerns were nothing to do with the people and entirely about getting their way.
Posts: 3,742
Threads: 44
Reputation:
13919
Joined: May 2015
Location: Ohio, but with hookers and blackjack
Mood: None
(02-23-2016, 09:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are falling inline with the plan to not move on any nominee. They and McConnell have made it very clear they will not vote on any, and will likely not even meet with a nominee. The best move Obama can make right now is nominate a Scalia clone. I am okay with a split bench, so this bothers me none and it is a lose-lose situation for the Senate.
By not moving on such a nominee they would just make Obama and the left look more willing than them to reach across the aisle. If they move on the nominee then they show that their concerns were nothing to do with the people and entirely about getting their way.
Him nominating a Scalia clone would be the first real effort he's made in 8 years to branch across the aisle. Granted it would be for purely spiteful reasons, it'd still count as the first time he's done it, and it was a big focus in his inauguration and all.
Posts: 3,029
Threads: 14
Reputation:
7162
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-23-2016, 09:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The best move Obama can make right now is nominate a Scalia clone. I am okay with a split bench, so this bothers me none and it is a lose-lose situation for the Senate.
By not moving on such a nominee they would just make Obama and the left look more willing than them to reach across the aisle. If they move on the nominee then they show that their concerns were nothing to do with the people and entirely about getting their way.
You really think if Obama nominated a Conservative that the Senate wouldn't confirm? Only way that happens is if Dems filibuster.
Repubs aren't saying or doing anything different than Dems would do, and have done, in this situation. The "won't even interview" is just posturing because they KNOW Obama isn't going to nominate even a moderate.
Until Repubs actually deny a moderate all this is mere speculation suited to whatever biased agenda people want to push.
It's an interesting poker game going on. If Repubs drag their feet and don't cooperate, they could lose the Senate and not regain the WH, leaving them with an even more liberal confirmation. If Obama wastes time parading liberals out there he knows won't get confirmed, then as it gets closer to the election Repubs might not want to confirm anyone. The manuevering could change dramatically on all sides (not excluding Senate Dems!) as polling for the Senate and WH changes.
Posts: 2,270
Threads: 96
Joined: Dec 2015
Mood: None
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
