CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So how is the Majority Leader saying 'No!' not giving their answer to the consent requirement?

Only yeses count?

 

[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.

So how is the Majority Leader saying 'No!' not giving their answer to the consent requirement?

Only yeses count?

Only votes count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No fire, no smoke.

BHO would never do it.

If he did, SCOTUS would declare the action unconstitutional and refuse to seat the appointee.

Then both parties would impeach, try, and convict any president who tried such a thing.

 

[HenryBHough]

"Both"????

Jammie-boi
:
Whateverinhell that is you're smokin' please remember you Democrats are mandated to share!

 

[320 Years of History]

BHO would never do it.

If he did, SCOTUS would declare the action unconstitutional and refuse to seat the appointee.

I don't know if they would or not. Has the SCOTUS ever decided upon anything similar to the idea posed by The Post's editorial?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So how is the Majority Leader saying 'No!' not giving their answer to the consent requirement?

Only yeses count?

Only votes count.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a vote is required? OR even presenting it to a committee?

 

[Renae]

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.

Refusing to act can also be argued as rejecting the President's action, not willful inaction. That's a very dangerous path to tread and should be avoided.

 

[FA_Q2]

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."

What it dies is essentially dissolve the very concept that our government is based on - separation of powers. The fact is that if people really cared to open up the gridlock they could do so by replacing those that are causing it.

There is no justification whatsoever for the president to simply ignore the constitution because things are not going as he or others may like. The process is crystal clear and without the senate confirming the appointee, they do not become a SCOTUS judge.

 

[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.

So how is the Majority Leader saying 'No!' not giving their answer to the consent requirement?

Only yeses count?

Only votes count.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a vote is required? OR even presenting it to a committee?

I don't think it does say a vote is required and I don't recall the Constitution saying a damn thing about committees and yet we have them.

I don't care what procedure -- vote, secret handshakes, whatever -- the Senate uses to turn down a nominee, so long as they use it so as to bring to formal closure one person's nomination. If they and the President want to keep the cycle of nominate --> reject --> nominate another --> reject that one too --> and so on, I'm fine with that.

I don't care what party holds sway. I expect our elected Representatives to be positively accountable for their actions and to the American people, and simply ignoring something that's come before them isn't accountable enough as far as I'm concerned. Ignoring it somewhat similar to what's going on when you ask someone a binarily answerable question and they shake their head instead of answer "yes" or "no." BS! They wanted my vote, well, damnit, they need to stand up and be counted just like I do, even if the means of doing so isn't by an vote.

What they are doing now is disingenuous. Mitch McConnell and a few other folks can "take the heat" from their "protected" seats/states and we voters who put them and the remaining Senators in office can't rightly blame the "rank and file" Senators for standing with them or not because those "lesser" Senators aren't made to take a clear position. BS. And I don't have a Senator, so it definitely doesn't matter to me which senators stand where. What matters to me is that they all (Even Mr. Rubio who has a hard time attending floor votes) stand up and be "counted" in "this" group or "that" group.

The state of limbo is the thing with which I take issue, not how they choose to resolve and end the limbo status.

P.S.
How dare any Republicans have chided Mr. Rubio for not appearing for his votes, yet having the temerity too to not bring a matter to a vote, or whatever decision making process they use that closes the matter and moves "us" on to something else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't think it does say a vote is required and I don't recall the Constitution saying a damn thing about committees and yet we have them.

I don't care what procedure -- vote, secret handshakes, whatever -- the Senate uses to turn down a nominee, so long as they use it so as to bring to formal closure one person's nomination.

Well when a bill is presented to the Senate for passage, they have basically three ways of rejecting it;
1. it fails a floor vote or a symbolic procedural vote on the floor of the Senate.

2. It fails to leave the appropriate committee. This means the leadership of the dominant party for that committee rejected it, representing the majority party's decision. As I understand it this is the largest set of bills that are formally rejected by the Senate, except for...

3. The Senate Leadership, in the person of the Majority Leader or someone acting in his stead, simply rejects the proposed bill before it even goes to committee. The vast majority of ideas that many would have put into law never even get to the committee stage or even formally composed into a bill, as the ruling party is irreversibly hostile to the whole concept to start with. This would include things like a universal CCW reciprocity bill the NRA was wanting passed since for ever and never made it to a committee as I understand it. No one ever voted on it because the Senate leadership under Reid would never allow it to even be put on the schedule.

Number three is the procedure where President Obama's nominee has been dealt with here, and the President given a firm, 'No!'

But dont worry your heart too much; all it really means is that the President hasnt raised his offer price high enough for the Senate leadership to decide its worth the heat to back stab their constituents just one more time.

 

[320 Years of History]

the President hasnt raised his offer price high enough for the Senate leadership to decide its worth the heat to back stab their constituents just one more time.

I have gotten to such a state of ire with the Congress that I don't honestly think there exists a price sitting Senators consider too high to warrant not stabbing their constituencies in the back.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is no justification whatsoever for the president to simply ignore the constitution because things are not going as he or others may like. The process is crystal clear and without the senate confirming the appointee, they do not become a SCOTUS judge.

I'm not sure I know how those two sentences correlate. The President didn't ignore his duty. He nominated someone, many folks in fact. I don't know of any President that didn't do their job of nominating folks to fill vacancies.

 

[Stephanie]

now if this were a REPUBLICAN you'd see the WashingtonCompost wailing about how dare he, he's acting like a Fascist, Nazi, Hitler, etc.

but you see, Even though we have videos showing them saying exactly what Republicans are today and HOLDING up the nominee of Republicans.




this is how the the Demcorat party get to play more games for their dirty politics and with our lives . I just don't see how anyone can belong to such a sick and twisted party.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is seen is that both parties work essentially for themselves and not for the people and country. We have representative government, and it is clear who is represented.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

Actually, impeachment proceedings would keep them from doing most anything else. A lame duck President with a year left in his or her term, would be so tied up it with legal maneuvers, it may as well function as a removal from office

 

[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.

Actually, impeachment proceedings would keep them from doing most anything else. A lame duck President with a year left in his or her term, would be so tied up it with legal maneuvers, it may as well function as a removal from office

Well, what they hell are they doing anyway? It's not like they are so busy passing legislation or holding hearings on Presidential nominees.

At this point in Mr. Obama's Presidency and the election cycle, all the Representatives are or will be staging their reelection campaigns, and one third of the Senators will be doing the same. If they are willing to put their focus on trying to impeach and convict a President who's leaving office in less than a year and can't run again anyway, let them.

Given the current state of the senate election map, GOP Senators, and the GOP overall, have more to lose by getting tied up in an impeachment/trial.

 

[there4eyeM]

High crimes and misdemeanors, although ridiculously misapplied in regard to B. Clinton, still would be difficult to justify against Obama (this said without supporting him).

 

[Katzndogz]

As a purely executive action any subsequent president can remove that justice with a signature.

 

[HenryBHough]

This (so-called) "president" MIGHT also have the authority to stand in the surf and command the tide to not rise.

But....alas....even HIS narcissism goes only so far.

Up to now.....

 

[Katzndogz]

It is bizarre that people don't know that political appointees only hold their posts until there is a new president.