CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[SingleVoyce]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Such language does not appear in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[PredFan]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

There is no requirement in the constitution saying that Congress has to act on a nominee.

There does not have to be nine judges on the court. Nine is the limit. Many times in US history there has been less than nine.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

There is no obligation to meet with the nominee or act on the matter in any way.

If you disagree, post the constitutional text that mandates otherwise.

since you are not a constitutional expert, we can skip your nonsense

How would you know? You're still striving for novice.

trump will not be president

Noted for future reference.

there will be no more Scalias

Also noted.

 

[PredFan]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

You understand that those are his words and are not in the Constitution? Surely you must.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Why is what they say so important?

 

[rightwinger]

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Congress sets up the number of justices, not the President......they could reduce the court to one Justice if they wanted....

Then do it through legislation like it was done before

You would need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Actually, it has stood at 9 judges for the last 150 years. The last time it was changed it was done through legislation not an amendment

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Congress sets up the number of justices, not the President......they could reduce the court to one Justice if they wanted....

Then do it through legislation like it was done before

You would need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Actually, it has stood at 9 judges for the last 150 years. The last time it was changed it was done through legislation not an amendment

Sorry, I responded to the matter of intent. Mea culpa. That can happen when one speedreads too fast for conditions.

 

[rightwinger]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

There is no requirement in the constitution saying that Congress has to act on a nominee.

There does not have to be nine judges on the court. Nine is the limit. Many times in US history there has been less than nine.

The only times it has dropped below 9 in the last 150 years is when Congress was arguing over a selection

Congress has a right to review a Presidential selection and either accept or reject them. "Doing nothing at all" is an avoidance of their job

 

[SingleVoyce]

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Why is what they say so important?

I'm not sure what part of this you guys don't understand. The question asked of me was how did I know that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that the Senate WOULD act on these nominations. I gave you a quote from an individual who was involved at the beginning that stated such. Seems pretty clear to me. If you really believe that it was intended to be optional then find me a quote from an individual with similar credentials who states that.

Do you really want a system where no Supreme Court justice is ever approved unless one party has absolute control over both the executive and legislative branches? That's where we're headed if this nonsense continues.

 

[GaryDog]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

"One" might be able to argue that but I have a high degree of confidence that was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution.

elaborate

James Madison proposed having the president nominate, and the SCOTUS nominee be confirmed with 1/3rd of the Senate approving. The "Father of the Constitution" absolutely did not intend for this kind of quagmire.

 

[GaryDog]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

Anyone who knows the definition of "advise".

 

[TNHarley]

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Why is what they say so important?

I'm not sure what part of this you guys don't understand. The question asked of me was how did I know that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that the Senate WOULD act on these nominations. I gave you a quote from an individual who was involved at the beginning that stated such. Seems pretty clear to me. If you really believe that it was intended to be optional then find me a quote from an individual with similar credentials who states that.

Do you really want a system where no Supreme Court justice is ever approved unless one party has absolute control over both the executive and legislative branches? That's where we're headed if this nonsense continues.

He wasn't a framer.
How is your second paragraph different from them all just voting no?
Im all for checks and balances. I am also for not having political hacks in our SC.

 

[martybegan]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

It's simple. Some of us believe that the Courts have gone so far out of their mandate, applying broad personal opinions and slapping together multiple degrees of jigger-pokery to create rights out of thin air, and deny rights clearly listed in the document. The courts are legislating, not interpreting. Thus measures not seen before need to be taken.

That being said all of what Senators like Cruz is saying is still within the bounds of the document. It gives no timeline, no procedure, just "advice and consent".

One could say that about the Heller decision, definitely.

That you probably disagree just reveals your own partisan hypocrisy.

No, it reveals my strict constructionist opinions. The proper way to read the 2nd is to utilize the comma, that leaves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the People, while reserving the Right to Call Militias to the States. One is to make sure the people always maintain a right to defend themselves, the 2nd that the States have their own armed force and the feds cannot stop them from doing it.

My opinions of the end result often conflict with my reading of the constitution. I wouldn't vote to ban Abortion, but I detest Roe V Wade. I am for Gay Marriage, but against the way it was implemented by the Supreme Court. I prefer Legislative Action in that case.

 

[GaryDog]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

"One" might be able to argue that but I have a high degree of confidence that was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution.

I have a high degree of confidence that was precisely what they intended.

And your confidence was misplaced.

 

[GaryDog]

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

You understand that those are his words and are not in the Constitution? Surely you must.

The question was about the framers' intent. That document speaks to their intent.

 

[martybegan]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

It's simple. Some of us believe that the Courts have gone so far out of their mandate, applying broad personal opinions and slapping together multiple degrees of jigger-pokery to create rights out of thin air, and deny rights clearly listed in the document. The courts are legislating, not interpreting. Thus measures not seen before need to be taken.

That being said all of what Senators like Cruz is saying is still within the bounds of the document. It gives no timeline, no procedure, just "advice and consent".

One could say that about the Heller decision, definitely.

That you probably disagree just reveals your own partisan hypocrisy.

No, it reveals my strict constructionist opinions. The proper way to read the 2nd is to utilize the comma, that leaves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the People, while reserving the Right to Call Militias to the States. One is to make sure the people always maintain a right to defend themselves, the 2nd that the States have their own armed force and the feds cannot stop them from doing it.

My opinions of the end result often conflict with my reading of the constitution. I wouldn't vote to ban Abortion, but I detest Roe V Wade. I am for Gay Marriage, but against the way it was implemented by the Supreme Court. I prefer Legislative Action in that case.

LOL, NEVER in the history of the SCOTUS going back to 1789 was that the way it was interpreted. But again, thanks for showing the world your hilarious hypocrisy.

Prior to the recent century, the idea that a law abiding citizen could NOT own a firearm if they so chose never entered into the thought processes of people. Gun restrictions were limited to sensitive areas, or small towns where tight control was mandated by armed law enforcement as a way to prevent bloodshed.

The idea that only government agents have the right to be armed is a concept only recent to the conversation, and thus your pointing to a lack of jurisprudence is a strawman, nothing more.

Mod Edit: -- don't respond to namecalling in the CDZ..

 

[GaryDog]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

It's simple. Some of us believe that the Courts have gone so far out of their mandate, applying broad personal opinions and slapping together multiple degrees of jigger-pokery to create rights out of thin air, and deny rights clearly listed in the document. The courts are legislating, not interpreting. Thus measures not seen before need to be taken.

That being said all of what Senators like Cruz is saying is still within the bounds of the document. It gives no timeline, no procedure, just "advice and consent".

One could say that about the Heller decision, definitely.

That you probably disagree just reveals your own partisan hypocrisy.

No, it reveals my strict constructionist opinions. The proper way to read the 2nd is to utilize the comma, that leaves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the People, while reserving the Right to Call Militias to the States. One is to make sure the people always maintain a right to defend themselves, the 2nd that the States have their own armed force and the feds cannot stop them from doing it.

My opinions of the end result often conflict with my reading of the constitution. I wouldn't vote to ban Abortion, but I detest Roe V Wade. I am for Gay Marriage, but against the way it was implemented by the Supreme Court. I prefer Legislative Action in that case.

LOL, NEVER in the history of the SCOTUS going back to 1789 was that the way it was interpreted. But again, thanks for showing the world your hilarious hypocrisy.

Prior to the recent century, the idea that a law abiding citizen could NOT own a firearm if they so chose never entered into the thought processes of people. Gun restrictions were limited to sensitive areas, or small towns where tight control was mandated by armed law enforcement as a way to prevent bloodshed.

The idea that only government agents have the right to be armed is a concept only recent to the conversation, and thus your pointing to a lack of jurisprudence is a strawman, nothing more.

But keep up namecalling in the CDZ, lets see how far it gets you.

LOL, exactly what the DC law was. Gun restrictions IN THE CITY. Congrats, you just played yourself.

 

[2aguy]

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Why is what they say so important?

I'm not sure what part of this you guys don't understand. The question asked of me was how did I know that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that the Senate WOULD act on these nominations. I gave you a quote from an individual who was involved at the beginning that stated such. Seems pretty clear to me. If you really believe that it was intended to be optional then find me a quote from an individual with similar credentials who states that.

Do you really want a system where no Supreme Court justice is ever approved unless one party has absolute control over both the executive and legislative branches? That's where we're headed if this nonsense continues.

Yep.....that might be a nice check and balance on the system......also...who says they have to control all of it....the two parties would just have to negotiate...another check on the accumulation of power....and if the court stays at 8....good....they have had too much power for tool long.......

5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not be the only say in what is or isn't Constitutional....

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. Some of us believe that the Courts have gone so far out of their mandate, applying broad personal opinions and slapping together multiple degrees of jigger-pokery to create rights out of thin air, and deny rights clearly listed in the document. The courts are legislating, not interpreting. Thus measures not seen before need to be taken.

That being said all of what Senators like Cruz is saying is still within the bounds of the document. It gives no timeline, no procedure, just "advice and consent".

One could say that about the Heller decision, definitely.

That you probably disagree just reveals your own partisan hypocrisy.

No, it reveals my strict constructionist opinions. The proper way to read the 2nd is to utilize the comma, that leaves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the People, while reserving the Right to Call Militias to the States. One is to make sure the people always maintain a right to defend themselves, the 2nd that the States have their own armed force and the feds cannot stop them from doing it.

My opinions of the end result often conflict with my reading of the constitution. I wouldn't vote to ban Abortion, but I detest Roe V Wade. I am for Gay Marriage, but against the way it was implemented by the Supreme Court. I prefer Legislative Action in that case.

LOL, NEVER in the history of the SCOTUS going back to 1789 was that the way it was interpreted. But again, thanks for showing the world your hilarious hypocrisy.

Prior to the recent century, the idea that a law abiding citizen could NOT own a firearm if they so chose never entered into the thought processes of people. Gun restrictions were limited to sensitive areas, or small towns where tight control was mandated by armed law enforcement as a way to prevent bloodshed.

The idea that only government agents have the right to be armed is a concept only recent to the conversation, and thus your pointing to a lack of jurisprudence is a strawman, nothing more.

But keep up namecalling in the CDZ, lets see how far it gets you.

LOL, exactly what the DC law was. Gun restrictions IN THE CITY. Congrats, you just played yourself.

DC said no person who didn't own a handgun prior to 1975 could own one in their own home. It also said long guns had to be rendered unusable while stored in the home.

You compare that to wild west towns that restricted ownership. What you ignore is that those towns were small enough that the law enforcement controlled entry to the town, and possession by EVERYONE in the town. In DC it was a ban without the required guarantee that everyone in the town was ALSO unarmed.

So again you harp on PART of the equation, and ignore the other parts to suit your own interests.