Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[TyroneSlothrop]

well to answer your question since you are clearly challenged on the constitution that would be Article 2, Clauses 2-4 and amendments 12,14,15,19,23,24,and 26 which in the aggregate provide for the election of the President, both the good ones and the bad ones which each person can determine for himself. There was no change required to Article 2 and it was part of the original text. It also provided for his reelection as it did for the election of Obama. You really should read it sometime, although it can be a bit complicated and intimidating to some.

Yeah Monsignor whatever

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way....comprende ?

 

[Flopper]

What I don't understand is why Mitch McConnell made it clear that the Senate will not consider Obama's nomination, no matter who he nominates.. He could of just said after the Senate receives the president's nomination the Senate will give it due consideration and then just tie it up in committee. Why force Republicans to explain to voters for next 10 mos. why their senators who are being paid over $175,000/yr are not doing their job.

Uh…how about Reid tying things up for years? oh… that's in the past, let's not talk about it, huh?

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

 

[g5000]

BREAKING: Justice Scalia is STILL dead.

 

[deaddogseye]

well to answer your question since you are clearly challenged on the constitution that would be Article 2, Clauses 2-4 and amendments 12,14,15,19,23,24,and 26 which in the aggregate provide for the election of the President, both the good ones and the bad ones which each person can determine for himself. There was no change required to Article 2 and it was part of the original text. It also provided for his reelection as it did for the election of Obama. You really should read it sometime, although it can be a bit complicated and intimidating to some.

Yeah Monsignor whatever

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way....comprende ?

you are the one raising the constitutional and legal issues without really knowing what you are referring to.Its hardly trivia, although if it is so are the arguments you make with respect to it.. But as I said it can be very intimidating to some. Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information, although I am told it can be quite blissful. Capisce?

 

[deaddogseye]

What I don't understand is why Mitch McConnell made it clear that the Senate will not consider Obama's nomination, no matter who he nominates.. He could of just said after the Senate receives the president's nomination the Senate will give it due consideration and then just tie it up in committee. Why force Republicans to explain to voters for next 10 mos. why their senators who are being paid over $175,000/yr are not doing their job.

Uh…how about Reid tying things up for years? oh… that's in the past, let's not talk about it, huh?

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

FWIW were Hilary Clinton to become president and the Republicans retain control of the Senate I'm pretty confident that the GOP would have NO problem if she refused to name a replacement until the day the Democrats retake the Senate which if they fail to do it in 2016 could be a long way off given who comes up in 2018 and the fact that the party of the President usually loses seats in the off year election as Obama has learned.

 

[mamooth]

I demand a full investigation concerning every detail of his last days!

That especially includes finding out exactly who he was traveling with on this luxury vacation, being that they're all suspects, and finding out who paid for his very expensive luxury private charter flight. We already know that a wealthy industrialist was paying for his resort stay.

(Ruh-roh. The conservatives are suddenly realizing that investigating his death would not be a good idea, being it would reveal just who Scalia was taking gift-bribes from, and just how much graft Scalia was taking in.)

 

[bendog]

BREAKING: Justice Scalia is STILL dead.

I'm still pretty surprised. Not shocked anymore. I really thought he'd see 80.

 

[Contumacious]

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

It sounds like rule you're talking about is two wrongs equal a right.

No, it's the 'you get fucked you **** em right back' rule. That's how people learn.

And that is how governments fall, when the people realize that "******* the opposition" is the driving force behind their leaders. There will come a point when the American people will throw the bastards out, all of them and declare this Great American Experiment to be a failure. Trump and Sanders are just the beginning. If the two parties don't clean up their act, they will both cease to exist.

Yo jock strap

When the opposition stands for death, crime, tyranny misery

do we have a right to oppose it?

.

You have the right but whether you are right is another story.

If I am defending individual Liberty, Capitalism , Free Markets and the Original Constitution (1787) then I am right.

Only the soicialists, the berners and the state supremacists would say that I am wrong

 

[g5000]

BREAKING: Justice Scalia is STILL dead.

I'm still pretty surprised. Not shocked anymore. I really thought he'd see 80.

Has anyone poked him with a stick? Just to be sure...

"ZOMG! The coroner forgot the mirror to the mouth test!"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information, although I am told it can be quite blissful. Capisce?

Ok Monsignor if ignorance is bliss I am confident you are "having orgasms"

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Too Quick Out of the Gate?



TPM Alum Sahil Kapur has an interesting piece up this afternoon on what he calls growing signs of Republican division over Supreme Court tactics. It's a good piece and you should read it. I think it is right to note that 'tactics' is definitely the issue here. There's little reason to believe that there's any division on the goal of preventing Barack Obama from choosing Antonin Scalia's successor. The issue is whether the official position outlined by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is simply too brazen and unvarnished for some Republicans to sign on to - particularly swing state senators up for election in 2016.

Read More →

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Too Quick Out of the Gate?



TPM Alum Sahil Kapur has an interesting piece up this afternoon on what he calls growing signs of Republican division over Supreme Court tactics. It's a good piece and you should read it. I think it is right to note that 'tactics' is definitely the issue here. There's little reason to believe that there's any division on the goal of preventing Barack Obama from choosing Antonin Scalia's successor. The issue is whether the official position outlined by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is simply too brazen and unvarnished for some Republicans to sign on to - particularly swing state senators up for election in 2016.

Read More →

I got to thinking this AM about that very thingy about the 14 purple States and the nine GOP Senators up for reelection. I came up with this list.

1. Hoeven - ND
2. Johnson - WI
3.Blunt - MO
4. Kirk - IL
5. Coats - IN
6. Portman - OH
7. Toomey - PA
8. Rubio - FL
9. Ayotte - NH

 

[deaddogseye]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

Well let's get "technical" then. You claimed;

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges.

You are in error. The President SHALL have the POWER to NOMINATE. There is a huge difference there. The power to nominate is somewhat subordinate to the power to appoint. The power of actual appointment is a shared responsibility between the Executive and the Senate in the Legislative. See Article II § 2 Clause 2.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

I'd suggest you read the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2 which states in part;
"He [the President, sic] shall have power... and he shall nominate, 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... ." [Emphasis Added]

Note the highlighted and underlined words "advise and consent" absolutely implying ACTION from the Senate. If you can find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution authorizing any Senate option toward inaction in the exercise of their responsibilities to maintain the clear intent to execute its responsibilities under the Great Contract, enlighten all of us at USMB!

it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it.

Take a look at Article II § 2 Clause 2 again. What you claim it states is but a portion of the Senate's responsibilities. What does, "he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" mean? The Senate doesn't act alone and it's certainly a violation of Constitutional principles and intent for the Senate to sit on their hands and obstruct the People's Business. The Senate is required to consider the President's nominee and give an up or down vote...you know, the "advise and consent" bit. There is no confusion of that process in the words of the Constitution IF one reads the Document dispassionately and without partisan bias.

the mandatory word shall applies only to the president (you are correct I did switch nominate and appoint but it doesnt change anything) and your argument stands on what you correctly call an implication -- and that is fine and really a political argument.

No court would ever say that Constitution requires the Senate to take up a nomination in any specific way. Do you contend otherwise?

And of course by ignoring they have given it consideration -- and decided it isn't worth a hearing or a vote. The voters can toss them all out if they want but they haven't violated the constitution.

Another question -- when does the Constitution require that this vote be taken?

I'm sorry but there is just no credible argument that the Senate is "required" to give an up or down vote. That is every bit as incorrect as anyone who suggested that the President doesn't have the right - or obligation - to nominate.

And keep in mind that the constitution gives the president a possible mechanism to bypass in part a Senate that wont take up a vote -- its called a recess appointment

Well, you have confirmed your ignorance, and have displayed your partisanship in the process.

This is the passage you wish to edit out of existence or are pretending means something other than intended; "...he [the President, sic] SHALL nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court... ." Clearly, the intent was that the President and the Senate SHALL work together during the appointment process after the nomination by POTUS.

You're trying to slice and dice the words of the Constitution to satisfy your partisan desires. It is astoundingly clear from the words directly above from the Constitution at Article II § 2 Clause 2, written by the Framers, that SPECIFIC action by the Senate is REQUIRED during the confirmation process regardless of the outcome of the vote during that process. Words have meaning and they have consequence. If you don't learn anything else, at least have the sense to take that much away with you!

 

[defcon4]

intimidating to some.

Yeah sophistry intimidates the weak of Intellect ...me I know that when no one signs the decision to inflict horror43 on a hapless Nation and they go to pain to state "this decision does not set a precedent" that someone "just pooped" ............

Looks like Deaddog got you by the balls you partisan hack. Your answers to him are intellectually inferior because you are meddling with shit you have no idea about. The only thing you do is demagoguery and propaganda without rhyme and reason. Thank you Deaddog!!!!

 

[defcon4]

Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information, although I am told it can be quite blissful. Capisce?

Ok Monsignor if ignorance is bliss I am confident you are "having orgasms"

Another unintelligent reply for lack of knowledge of the subject.

 

[defcon4]

Well that argument may make perfect sense to political pundits and political junkies but not to most voters. Justifying not doing your job because the opposition didn't do theirs is not good enough. Would these actions of this republican controlled senate justify Clinton refusing to nominate a justice till she get's democratic senate? Of course not. This kind of crap is exactly why American voters want to clean house and unfortunately many are ready for a new form of government.

BTW, Harry Reid, blocking bills in the Senate is quite different than senate republicans refusing to give a fair hearing to a nomination before he or she is even nominated. They could at least wait to see who's nominated.

Speak for yourself. You are not representing the American public at large. You are representing yourself and are a part of the American public. You are not representing most voters, you are representing yourself as a voter. Quit your demagoguery.

 

[eddiew]

BREAKING: Justice Scalia is STILL dead.

I'm still pretty surprised. Not shocked anymore. I really thought he'd see 80.

Has anyone poked him with a stick? Just to be sure...

"ZOMG! The coroner forgot the mirror to the mouth test!"

Buried alive God is great

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

intimidating to some.

Yeah sophistry intimidates the weak of Intellect ...me I know that when no one signs the decision to inflict horror43 on a hapless Nation and they go to pain to state "this decision does not set a precedent" that someone "just pooped" ............

Looks like Deaddog got you by the balls you partisan hack. Your answers to him are intellectually inferior because you are meddling with shit you have no idea about. The only thing you do is demagoguery and propaganda without rhyme and reason. Thank you Deaddog!!!!

yeah you and "Deaddog" are a "couple of Einsteins" LOL