CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[there4eyeM]

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure, why not? The right is just a bunch of babies, and they won't do anything but whine anyway. I say go for it.

 

[there4eyeM]

If advice and consent are renounced, the way seems clear.

 

[eagle1462010]

That process is set by the Constitution and our laws................it is crystal clear that a permanent appointment must have consent of the Senate............Of course he could try to subvert the Constitution and rush it through while he has a number advantage and use a Kangaroo court to subvert the Constitution...................

Which I don't think he would have too much of a problem since he pisses on the document anyway. Mr. Pen and a phone man himself.

 

[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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

That process is set by the Constitution and our laws................it is crystal clear that a permanent appointment must have consent of the Senate............Of course he could try to subvert the Constitution and rush it through while he has a number advantage and use a Kangaroo court to subvert the Constitution...................

Which I don't think he would have too much of a problem since he pisses on the document anyway. Mr. Pen and a phone man himself.

Too bad you can't make a credible argument (As I did in last post) without adding some inanity (as I did not). It is always disconcerting to have people like you on my side of an argument. It's as if all you want to do is troll. Speaking of trolling, have you see my appeal?

 

[eagle1462010]

That process is set by the Constitution and our laws................it is crystal clear that a permanent appointment must have consent of the Senate............Of course he could try to subvert the Constitution and rush it through while he has a number advantage and use a Kangaroo court to subvert the Constitution...................

Which I don't think he would have too much of a problem since he pisses on the document anyway. Mr. Pen and a phone man himself.

Too bad you can't make a credible argument (As I did in last post) without adding some inanity (as I did not). It is always disconcerting to have people like you on my side of an argument. It's as if all you want to do is troll. Speaking of trolling, have you see my appeal?

The Op is trying to find away from the Constitution.........the Constitution is CLEAR...................the President must have the consent of the Senate.............

Anything other than that would be BS...........therefore you are BS................and the OP is a failure................and nothing more.

 

[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

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

 

[Stephanie]

good ole WashingtonCompost. always cheering for a way to squash We the people voice and say in our OWN GOVERNMENT. don't call them Fascist/commies though

 

[there4eyeM]

The Congress also owes it to the people to do its job. This is said, not to defend the President (for whom I did not vote), but to criticize this élite that has taken over the country with its two party dictatorship.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

........therefore you are BS................and the OP is a failure................and nothing more.

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.

Too bad you can't make a credible argument (As I did in last post) without adding some inanity (as I did not). It is always disconcerting to have people like you on my side of an argument.

 

[320 Years of History]

Interesting argument. I'd personally love to see the tactic used to seat Mr. Garland. Perhaps the thing I like most about it is that it presents a plausible means for eliminating the "do nothing" approach to governance that clogged the federal legislative process.

While the specifics of what I think about Mr. Garland himself and as a jurist don't play into my thinking on the matter as presented in The Washington Post editorial Mr. Diskant wrote, the fact that the Senate has taken to just not doing it's job does. I see the Senate's failure to act as a complete dereliction of duty. If the Senators don't care to seat a given individual who's been appointed, fine. Hold the vote and reject the person; vote "nay."

 

[Agit8r]

No need for that. The Democrats are bound to win the Senate, so that there can be an actual liberal appointment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

People can make an argument for ordering anchovies and pineapple on a pepperoni pizza too, but so what?

If you concede that doing what one is arguing for would be grounds for impeachment, then the gist is that they are making an argument that is outside the range of acceptable Presidential actions, and I would assume that such a precondition would have to apply in the phrase 'make an argument for', in order for it to be considered a plausible course of action.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Interesting argument. I'd personally love to see the tactic used to seat Mr. Garland. Perhaps the thing I like most about it is that it presents a plausible means for eliminating the "do nothing" approach to governance that clogged the federal legislative process.

While the specifics of what I think about Mr. Garland himself and as a jurist don't play into my thinking on the matter as presented in The Washington Post editorial Mr. Diskant wrote, the fact that the Senate has taken to just not doing it's job does. I see the Senate's failure to act as a complete dereliction of duty. If the Senators don't care to seat a given individual who's been appointed, fine. Hold the vote and reject the person; vote "nay."

The Senate is given the power to advise and its consent is required in appointments to SCOTUS, hence its refusal to even consider said proposed appointee would be in and of itself NEGATIVE consent, i.e. refusal to consent to said appointment, which is a rejection of said appointment.

For the President to finangle some absurd justification for, once again, overstepping his authority and ignoring the Constitutions plain conditions is part of an gradual undermining of our Congressional authority that has been a feature of the liberals support of Obama, as nothing is so important than to support the President on the left.

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?

When the rules are reduced to a plain shame dont be surprised if things go seriously sideways on us all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Well there is still that old fashioned' Upholding the Constitution thing' and keeping ones oath to serve faithfully.

You still remember what that is, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Congress also owes it to the people to do its job. This is said, not to defend the President (for whom I did not vote), but to criticize this élite that has taken over the country with its two party dictatorship.

When the Majority Leader of the Senate says that he and other leaders have conferred and that they will not consent to appointments to SCOTUS by this short timer President, that is a Constitutional decision that is 'doing their job'.

The Dems just dont like the answer. Nothing in the Constitution says that the Senate leadership has to submit the nomination to a committee etc.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.