CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[2aguy]

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

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

They don't have to...they have complete control over how they handle the court....as per Article 3....

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

 

[2aguy]

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....

They're not. As you gun nuts have told many of us, the voters and the Congress can always amend the constitution if they don't like judicial decisions.

It's amazing to me how many of you have either never taken -- or ignored -- 8th grade social studies.

Who said anything different...it is the left/democrats who don't want to follow the amendment process...they would rather appoint Social Justice warrior judges who make law from the bench...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

I await your argument against the Founder's desire for a clear separation of powers.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

State's rights do not override the people's rights as granted explicitly by the constitution. and the RKBA belongs to the people.

If people want to ban guns, overturn the 2nd amendment.

 

[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.

I await your argument against the Founder's desire for a clear separation of powers.

Requiring the Senate to act on the president's nomination IS an expression of the desire of separation of powers.

Vote down the nominee. It's that simple.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

What is the language of the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

It's unsettled law at this point.

The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?

I don't think there is anything unsettled by it- Senators can refuse to do their Constitutional duty for partisan reasons as the GOP is doing.

Its the new GOP.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

Nope......please...do some research.....

 

[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.

What is the language of the Constitution?

Moving goalposts much? The question was about "intent".

 

[2aguy]

It's unsettled law at this point.

The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?

I don't think there is anything unsettled by it- Senators can refuse to do their Constitutional duty for partisan reasons as the GOP is doing.

Its the new GOP.

No...you can't make up a duty that you want them to have and then accuse them of not doing it...there is nothing in Article 3 that states they have to do anyting in particular in regards to judges...other than to advise the President about them and then give their consent before they fill their seats...that's it...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Complete nonsense.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

State's rights do not override the people's rights as granted explicitly by the constitution. and the RKBA belongs to the people.

If people want to ban guns, overturn the 2nd amendment.

Tell that to your own position on gay marriage and abortion?

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

Nope......please...do some research.....

I'll settle with my 3 years of law school, 1st-time bar passage, and 11 years as a practicing attorney, thanks.

 

[2aguy]

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.

One guy? Really....out of how many judges and politicians back then....please, try harder..

 

[Syriusly]

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".

Saying that they will approve no justices is not advice and consent.

It is just obstruction.

But that has gotten to be what the GOP is all about.

 

[GaryDog]

It's unsettled law at this point.

The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?

I don't think there is anything unsettled by it- Senators can refuse to do their Constitutional duty for partisan reasons as the GOP is doing.

Its the new GOP.

No...you can't make up a duty that you want them to have and then accuse them of not doing it...there is nothing in Article 3 that states they have to do anyting in particular in regards to judges...other than to advise the President about them and then give their consent before they fill their seats...that's it...

"Doing nothing" is not an option. They advise and consent. They have done neither.

"Do some research."

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

I await your argument against the Founder's desire for a clear separation of powers.

Requiring the Senate to act on the president's nomination IS an expression of the desire of separation of powers.

Vote down the nominee. It's that simple.

Again, show the language stipulating an obligation to act. Or pound sand.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Don't pull a muscle while furiously walking that one back. The principle of "states rights" that conservatives stump for so emphatically in all other cases was ignored by neo-cons in the Heller case. It's as simple as that. Pure cognitive dissonance.

Nope......please...do some research.....

I'll settle with my 3 years of law school, 1st-time bar passage, and 11 years as a practicing attorney, thanks.

Yeah.....I would have to see that paperwork.......

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yeah...that isn't what ended up in Article 3....