Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tyroneweaver, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. Grizz
    Offline

    Grizz Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    2,452
    Thanks Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Ratings:
    +2,123
    "

    Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


    numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

    obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

    contains no such obligation."

    Moreover, the suggestion


    that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

    does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

    of the term."


    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

    Let's see Harvard Law professor , or you and Faun.....
     
  2. IsaacNewton
    Offline

    IsaacNewton Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    13,445
    Thanks Received:
    2,565
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,483
    So Congress has no obligation to do anything then. They are under no obligation to pass laws on anything. Essentially doing what the Republicans have done the last 7 years, shut down the government.

    We've reached the point where one major party sees its desires slowly fading away and no way to stem the tide with elections. So they have decided to hold the entire country hostage and not fulfill any of the functions laid out in the Constitution for the Congress.

    Go with that plan cons, demographics will render your desires entirely irrelevant soon enough. But until then stop claiming to be Americans. You aren't.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. eagle7_31
    Offline

    eagle7_31 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,435
    Thanks Received:
    418
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,940

    You are off in lwing never never land. The "GOP Congress" folded to Obama on immigration, Obamacare etc. BO has gotten most everything he wanted either that or EO or court decision. The Congress blocked not much of anything. The left wingers are turning this country into Greece or a 3rd world basket case so it really does not matter much.
     
  4. IsaacNewton
    Offline

    IsaacNewton Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    13,445
    Thanks Received:
    2,565
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,483
    You want to obfuscate.

    If Congress isn't required to do anything, then we have no government. This was never a problem before now because both parties actually worked and did their jobs. They bickered, argued, name called, but in the end they voted and that was that.

    This is the first time one of the political parties has said "we are over-rulling the Constitution and will not do our jobs. Our political party is now our god."

    Republicans never forget, you are the ones that crossed this line and made your politics more important than the country and the Constitution. Democracy doesn't work for you any more.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Messiah

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    31,005
    Thanks Received:
    5,171
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Ratings:
    +15,603
    Your ludicrous assumptions are noted and dismissed. Here, in reality, no Senate ever shut down the confirmation process entirely to prevent a president from his Constitutional power of filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court with nearly a year remaining in their term.

    Unprecedented.
     
  6. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Messiah

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    31,005
    Thanks Received:
    5,171
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Ratings:
    +15,603
    Are you really as disconnected from reality as you appear??

    You claimed Biden said, "there SHOULDN'T be confirmations in he final year..."

    But Biden didn't say that. What Biden said was there shouldn't be any confirmations until after the election. And he said that just months before the election. In reality, with a month off for the Senate in between Biden saying that; and the election; it was a grand total of 3 months Biden wanted to avoid confirmations.

    So no, Biden did not say the same thing you said. 3 months out of 12 is not a year. I don't care how crazy you are.
     
  7. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Messiah

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    31,005
    Thanks Received:
    5,171
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Ratings:
    +15,603
    It's not just the president informing them they have to do their job -- it's the Constitution. Filling judicial vacancies is a shared responsibility between the President and the Senate.

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. bendog
    Offline

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    22,550
    Thanks Received:
    2,374
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +8,395
    I guess Mitch better did up the old guy and put him back on the bench for a year or so.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. ThoughtCrimes
    Offline

    ThoughtCrimes Old Navy Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Thanks Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +1,690
    First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

    I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

    "Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

    In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

    The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and 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. [Emphasis Added]

    That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

    In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

    There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

    Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

    "The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
    David A. Strauss, 1992

    "Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
    John McGinnis, 2005

    "The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
    Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012
     
  10. Flopper
    Offline

    Flopper Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    17,491
    Thanks Received:
    3,116
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +6,693
    Insults are not replies. If there were someway to eliminate the insults and flame wars, this board might really be worth the time.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

scalia voted perverts

,

scalia was having an affair

,

was justice scalia poisoned