Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
elaborateThe 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.
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".
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.
elaborateThe 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.
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....
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?
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."
elaborate"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.
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".
Indeed. The language that was voted upon clearly indicates the intent. The Constitution as signed as the national agreement is law.
Want to change it? Add or subtract? You know the drill.
Until then, the Senate has no obligation to act.
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
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.
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.
I doubt your academic credentials. They are too convenient for what you are arguing as an attempt at authority by degree.
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
Wow.....you got excited over a non point.....they don't have to say it ......all that is stated is that the guy can't take the seat until the Senate says it is okay......what about that do you fail to understand...
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
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
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".
Indeed. The language that was voted upon clearly indicates the intent. The Constitution as signed as the national agreement is law.
Want to change it? Add or subtract? You know the drill.
Until then, the Senate has no obligation to act.
Correct, and the senate is required to give advice and consent to the presidential nominee.
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
Perhaps but the Constitution does not state that Congress has to do anything at all.
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."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported.
And, naturally, the law of unintended consequences applies. The next Republican president who faces a democrat Senate will surely see the same actions taken should the democrats fear they don't have the votes to actually deny an appointment.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?
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".
Indeed. The language that was voted upon clearly indicates the intent. The Constitution as signed as the national agreement is law.
Want to change it? Add or subtract? You know the drill.
Until then, the Senate has no obligation to act.
Correct, and the senate is required to give advice and consent to the presidential nominee.
Please post the text mandating that requirement. It's about the tenth time I've asked.
"Doing nothing" is not an option. They advise and consent. They have done neither.
"Do some research."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported.
Lacking a requirement to take action, said position needs no support.
"Doing nothing" is not an option. They advise and consent. They have done neither.
"Do some research."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported.
Lacking a requirement to take action, said position needs no support.
