CDZ The US Supreme Court

[2aguy]

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

You are wrong because Advise and Consent doesn't say they have to hold hearings or vote...... so what the Republicans did is Constitutional and doing their job, even if that means not voting on the guy, they gave their advise...we will not vote, we will wait, and did not give their consent...which is their Right......

The democrats can vote against him as is their Right... making up smears to destroy not only his chances but to destroy his life is vile and disgusting.....

 

[2aguy]

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

Where in that does it say anything about voting? You are wrong. They advised obama they would not let his nominee through, and they did not give their consent.....you are just wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

Punks folded like cheap suits. Typical

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

After twenty years, I've grown tired of this crap. The masks are now fully off.

The Republicans need some serious spine in order to deal with this full-blown national enemy that has arisen in our midst from out of the Democratic Party . If they permit the Democrats to destroy this man with their nonsense and lose by sheer cowardice and ineptness this opportunity to protect the Republic and the Constitution for a generation, they can all burn in Hell.

They can do what is easy, or what is right. Their choice.

 

[2aguy]

After twenty years, I've grown tired of this crap. The masks are now fully off.

The Republicans need some serious spine in order to deal with this full-blown national enemy that has arisen in our midst from out of the Democratic Party . If they permit the Democrats to destroy this man with their nonsense and lose by sheer cowardice and ineptness this opportunity to protect the Republic and the Constitution for a generation, they can all burn in Hell.

They can do what is easy, or what is right. Their choice.

Exactly what the democrats planned.......

 

[oldsoul]

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

As you can see, I referred to the clause earlier.

Where in the phrase "by and with" do you see an obligation to vote, or even hold hearings?

Simple:
"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court..."
But, don't take my word for it.
From the Alliance For Justice:
"MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice."
Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice
How can the President do his job (appointing a justice) if the Senate refuses to do theirs (advise and consent)?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

As you can see, I referred to the clause earlier.

Where in the phrase "by and with" do you see an obligation to vote, or even hold hearings?

Simple:
"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court..."
But, don't take my word for it.
From the Alliance For Justice:
"MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice."
Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice
How can the President do his job (appointing a justice) if the Senate refuses to do theirs (advise and consent)?

I don't give a rat's ass about your progressive "law professors". Show me the text obligating the Senate to hold such a hearing.

 

[oldsoul]

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

You are wrong because Advise and Consent doesn't say they have to hold hearings or vote...... so what the Republicans did is Constitutional and doing their job, even if that means not voting on the guy, they gave their advise...we will not vote, we will wait, and did not give their consent...which is their Right......

The democrats can vote against him as is their Right... making up smears to destroy not only his chances but to destroy his life is vile and disgusting.....

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying here. I am in no way saying that the Senate is required to vote on any individual nominee. They do have an obligation to do their part in maintaining a Supreme court. Their part being voting on the confirmation/rejection of nominees.

See, If the Senate were to refuse to vote for a long enough period of time, the court would not have enough Justices (meaning zero) to be sustained. A clear violation of the constitution.

 

[oldsoul]

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

As you can see, I referred to the clause earlier.

Where in the phrase "by and with" do you see an obligation to vote, or even hold hearings?

Simple:
"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court..."
But, don't take my word for it.
From the Alliance For Justice:
"MYTH: The Senate has no obligation whatsoever to give a Supreme Court nominee a timely hearing or vote on confirmation.

FACT: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the duty to provide “advice and consent” on any person the president nominates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. To refuse to give that advice and consent by not holding a hearing or vote on a nominee is a dereliction of that constitutional duty—a point endorsed by over 350 law professors in a letter organized by Alliance for Justice."
Myths vs. Facts on Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - Alliance for Justice
How can the President do his job (appointing a justice) if the Senate refuses to do theirs (advise and consent)?

I don't give a rat's ass about your progressive "law professors". Show me the text obligating the Senate to hold such a hearing.

I cited them specifically because, as you would have seen had you taken the time to read the article, that was the case they made when Garland was nominated by Obama.
Further, if I misstated that they have an obligation to hold hearings, I apologise. That would be incorrect. Please see post number 48 for further comments. I see no reason to repeat them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If the Senate were to refuse to vote for a long enough period of time, the court would not have enough Justices (meaning zero) to be sustained. A clear violation of the constitution.

The number of Supreme Court Justices required is arbitrary, and dependent upon the whims of Congress. That number has changed several times.

Technically, three would do it.

I did not read the article, though I may later, because I am familiar with the Alliance for Justice, and nothing those law professors could say would create the Constitutional text necessary to defeat my contention.

Thank you for clarifying the matter of obligation under question.

 

[oldsoul]

If the Senate were to refuse to vote for a long enough period of time, the court would not have enough Justices (meaning zero) to be sustained. A clear violation of the constitution.

The number of Supreme Court Justices required is arbitrary, and dependent upon the whims of Congress. That number has changed several times.

Technically, three would do it.

I did not read the article, though I may later, because I am familiar with the Alliance for Justice, and nothing those law professors could say would create the Constitutional text necessary to defeat my contention.

Thank you for clarifying the matter of obligation under question.

You are quite correct. Three would do. However, it is my opinion that nine is the optimal number. The reason is that it is the smallest odd number that would likely have a majority serve throughout any one President's tenure, even serving the maximum allowable number of years. Therefore, it is unlikely that any one President would ever nominate more than four. Conceivable, and possible, but history has shown it to be highly unlikely.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

You are wrong because Advise and Consent doesn't say they have to hold hearings or vote...... so what the Republicans did is Constitutional and doing their job, even if that means not voting on the guy, they gave their advise...we will not vote, we will wait, and did not give their consent...which is their Right......

The democrats can vote against him as is their Right... making up smears to destroy not only his chances but to destroy his life is vile and disgusting.....

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying here. I am in no way saying that the Senate is required to vote on any individual nominee. They do have an obligation to do their part in maintaining a Supreme court. Their part being voting on the confirmation/rejection of nominees.

See, If the Senate were to refuse to vote for a long enough period of time, the court would not have enough Justices (meaning zero) to be sustained. A clear violation of the constitution.

Sorry...they could vote no on every single nominee for ever...and still be fulfilling their role...or not vote for anyone...and still be filling their role.....if the Senate doesn't think a nominee is fit, they can vote or not....that is their role.....the forces the President to pick someone better...a check and balance on power...

 

[oldsoul]

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

You are wrong because Advise and Consent doesn't say they have to hold hearings or vote...... so what the Republicans did is Constitutional and doing their job, even if that means not voting on the guy, they gave their advise...we will not vote, we will wait, and did not give their consent...which is their Right......

The democrats can vote against him as is their Right... making up smears to destroy not only his chances but to destroy his life is vile and disgusting.....

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying here. I am in no way saying that the Senate is required to vote on any individual nominee. They do have an obligation to do their part in maintaining a Supreme court. Their part being voting on the confirmation/rejection of nominees.

See, If the Senate were to refuse to vote for a long enough period of time, the court would not have enough Justices (meaning zero) to be sustained. A clear violation of the constitution.

Sorry...they could vote no on every single nominee for ever...and still be fulfilling their role...or not vote for anyone...and still be filling their role.....if the Senate doesn't think a nominee is fit, they can vote or not....that is their role.....the forces the President to pick someone better...a check and balance on power...

Technically, you are correct. Do you think that would be in the spirit of the COTUS? I don't.

 

[Votto]

The process looks to be a bit of a shambles from over here.

Both sides seem to be playing the same game and it all looks rather tawdry. These women may be lying in order to run down the clock.

But the other side is happy to airbrush out all the accusations for exactly the same reason.They are terrified that they will lose control of the process in November.

I cant see any good guys in this process.

How could the process be de-politicized so that justice is better served ?

The issue is that the court now has too much power.

Originally SCOTUS was just a benign court to settle matters according to the Constitution, but now with the Progressive movement the Constitution is ever changing as it is described as living and breathing and presumably having sex and reproducing as well. Now all bets are off as those on SCOTUS manipulate the Constitution anyway they damn well please.

The case Marbury vs. Madison later have SCOTUS the sole power of interpreting the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson went berserk over this and protested, but lost the fight as power was given to them alone.

Now cases like the Dred Scott Decision can stand alone as everyone is powerless to challenge them. Thank God the Civil war brought Dred to an end.