Do we still need a SCOTUS?

[nat4900]

Why didn't the Democrats include Supreme Court Justices when they changed the Senate rules the last time they had the majority?

Changing the rules ALWAYS has consequences.....But now, that GOP senators have clearly voiced that they will NOT do any work regarding the SCOTUS, democrats will take the chance since in 2 years from now, many Dem senators are up for re-election.

 

[OKTexas]

The court hasn't always had 9 justices, no reason they can't continue to function with less than 9.

true......but the number according to the founders was always an odd number.....Do you think that Thomas will quit?

How about you provide a link for that claim. Congress constitutionally determines the number. If judges left their political ideology at the door and only made decisions based on the law and the Constitution we wouldn't be dealing with this BS and majority decisions would be the exception and not the rule.

 

[OKTexas]

Typical regressive attitude, can win within the rules so you cheat or try to change the rules, what pathetic miserable pieces of shit you must be.

there was a "rule" that mandated that senators get off their asses and do their jobs.....What happened to that one?? Ask triple-chinned McConnell.....LOL

They've done their job, they advised the president they were withholding their consent. He's free to withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Elections have consequences. Where did I hear that before.

There is nothing Democrats can do to force a vote on judges. Thank you founding fathers, much smarter than today's idiot left.

Actually a simple majority in the Senate (with the VP vote) can force a vote on justices.....But, rather than explaining how to you, Ricky, I'll let you seek out some education all by yourself. LOL

That is if the Democratic party win the Senate which in my opinion is not happening...

 

[Onyx]

Do we still need a SCOTUS?

We never needed a supreme court to begin with.

The magical piece of paper did nothing besides authorize judicial fiat.

 

[Eloy]

There is an increasing polarization among American voters with the Democrats wanting the government to be capitalist with a liberal tone while the Republicans are capitalist with a conservative agenda. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics but the politicians have succeeded in politicizing appointments. When you see a big lump like Clarence Thomas saying nothing and voting as the Republicans wish the Court is brought into disrepute as it fails to be a sober, reasoned, and learned check on the Legislature and Executive.

Clarence Thomas -- the Republican Rubber Stamp and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind

 

[Auld Phart]

When is the last time Pelosi didn't bow to the democrats?

 

[nat4900]

How about you provide a link for that claim. Congress constitutionally determines the number. If judges left their political ideology at the door and only made decisions based on the law and the Constitution we wouldn't be dealing with this BS and majority decisions would be the exception and not the rule.

Well, you're correct that there is no stipulation on the number of justices on the SCOTUS, the REAL fact that 4 to 4 tie decisions will make the Court virtually meaningless in high profile cases.
The Constitution, however, calls for a Chief justice precisely to break tie votes but that individual is also rendered ineffective since the court is currently evenly divided.

I actually very much hope that republican senators block ANY of Clinton's nominees. I DO want a simple majority to rule since the 60 to 40 benchmark has NOT worked very well in getting many things done.....and, of course, I fully realize that if the senate changes to republican hands they too will abuse the simple majority....but at this point, I'll take the chance since these 100 lazy folks just sit around and bitch.

 

[nat4900]

They've done their job, they advised the president they were withholding their consent. He's free to withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else.

You have it ass backwards......The senate IS supposed to hold hearings on a nominee...something for ALL citizens to watch.......and then let the citizens "judge" if moronic partisanship is interfering with the intent of the Constitution......McConnell,probably fearing that he would expose his ULTRA partisanship, has chosen to not even hold hearings.....and that will come back to bite his flagging ass.

 

[Auld Phart]

He (the President) shall have the 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.

 

[nat4900]

He (the President) shall have the 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.

Nice cut-n-paste....Kindergarten classes were not wasted on you....

Now, figure out WHY the GOP senate won't EVEN hold a hearing or "advice" on who nominees should be......For McConnell its safer to do NOTHING.

 

[OKTexas]

How about you provide a link for that claim. Congress constitutionally determines the number. If judges left their political ideology at the door and only made decisions based on the law and the Constitution we wouldn't be dealing with this BS and majority decisions would be the exception and not the rule.

Well, you're correct that there is no stipulation on the number of justices on the SCOTUS, the REAL fact that 4 to 4 tie decisions will make the Court virtually meaningless in high profile cases.
The Constitution, however, calls for a Chief justice precisely to break tie votes but that individual is also rendered ineffective since the court is currently evenly divided.

I actually very much hope that republican senators block ANY of Clinton's nominees. I DO want a simple majority to rule since the 60 to 40 benchmark has NOT worked very well in getting many things done.....and, of course, I fully realize that if the senate changes to republican hands they too will abuse the simple majority....but at this point, I'll take the chance since these 100 lazy folks just sit around and bitch.

You keep making shit up. I wonder why, are you really that ill-informed? No where in Article 3 is a chief justice mentioned, that is a position created by congress. And heaven forbid the senate has a rule designed to prevent tyranny by a simple majority, but be careful what you wish for, because I don't think the commiecrats will take a majority this time and if the hildabitch wins the midterms will be a blood bath for your party.

 

[OKTexas]

They've done their job, they advised the president they were withholding their consent. He's free to withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else.

You have it ass backwards......The senate IS supposed to hold hearings on a nominee...something for ALL citizens to watch.......and then let the citizens "judge" if moronic partisanship is interfering with the intent of the Constitution......McConnell,probably fearing that he would expose his ULTRA partisanship, has chosen to not even hold hearings.....and that will come back to bite his flagging ass.

Once again, there is no constitutional requirement for the senate to hold hearings before providing advice and consent. The senate meet their constitutional duty.

 

[TEXIndependence]

Yes, we need a SCOTUS. It says so in the Constitution. We do not, however, need 9 people on the SCOTUS, especially if 5 of them are anti-constitutionalists. The original SCOTUS only had 6 judges. Let's just block anybody that isn't an originalist. Simple as that.

 

[nat4900]

You keep making shit up. I wonder why, are you really that ill-informed? No where in Article 3 is a chief justice mentioned, that is a position created by congress.

Nitpick all you want Tigger......LOL

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the office of Chief Justice, but presupposes its existence with a single reference in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." Nothing more is said in the Constitution regarding the office, including any distinction between the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, who are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The office was originally known as "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" and is still informally referred to using that title. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1 specifies that the title is "Chief Justice of the United States". The title was changed from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Congress in 1866

 

[nat4900]

Once again, there is no constitutional requirement for the senate to hold hearings before providing advice and consent. The senate meet their constitutional duty.

Fine....Let the GOP led senate do NOTHING......They have about 3 months left of their "vacation."

 

[nat4900]

Yes, we need a SCOTUS. It says so in the Constitution. We do not, however, need 9 people on the SCOTUS, especially if 5 of them are anti-constitutionalists. The original SCOTUS only had 6 judges. Let's just block anybody that isn't an originalist. Simple as that.

Fine....let's drop the SCOTUS to 6 only....
But let me make a wild guess as to which 2 you want to see gone.....LOL

(dream on,,,that's all you have left.)

 

[OKTexas]

You keep making shit up. I wonder why, are you really that ill-informed? No where in Article 3 is a chief justice mentioned, that is a position created by congress.

Nitpick all you want Tigger......LOL

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the office of Chief Justice, but presupposes its existence with a single reference in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." Nothing more is said in the Constitution regarding the office, including any distinction between the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, who are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The office was originally known as "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" and is still informally referred to using that title. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1 specifies that the title is "Chief Justice of the United States". The title was changed from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Congress in 1866

Poor thing, here you are complaining about the senate not following rules and established procedures when you're proposing blowing up long standing rules. Also I could do a bit more nitpicking on the Constitution but I'll chose to pass. Except to say how little you regressives think of the Constitution until you think you can use it to your advantage and how often you invent things that aren't in it.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, there is no constitutional requirement for the senate to hold hearings before providing advice and consent. The senate meet their constitutional duty.

Fine....Let the GOP led senate do NOTHING......They have about 3 months left of their "vacation."

Oh the fantasies of regressives, how truly entertaining they are. Republicans will hold the senate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To hell with the court. They don't uphold the Constitution anymore.

You do? That is a laugh and a half.

I laugh whenever I see your partisan threads and thats every one of them.

I'm sure you do. And I cringe each time you post, people all over the world can read what you write and must wonder why so many American's are so stupid.