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.
Why didn't the Democrats include Supreme Court Justices when they changed the Senate rules the last time they had the majority?
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?
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
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
Do we still need a SCOTUS?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Once again, there is no constitutional requirement for the senate to hold hearings before providing advice and consent. The senate meet their constitutional duty.
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.
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
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."
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.
