CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans are merely following Schumer, Biden and Reid. Are you saying Democrats abdicated their obligations under the Constitution?

Are you saying that Republicans should act like Democrats?

Huh? They're following the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule

 

[320 Years of History]

Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

Having said "no," why not put the nomination to a floor vote and let the Senators vote "yay" or "nay" as befits each of them? Bork got that much, even though the majority voted "nay." Let the suckers sitting now do the same.

Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case

He isn't politicizing anything. The man is required Constitutionally to nominate someone. He did.

Many nominations have 'died' in committee

Well, fine. Let them vote in committee against Justice Garland just as the Democrat majority committee did for Bork and scores of other nominees who were rejected.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Huh? They're following the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule

What nominees didn't receive a floor vote under the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule?

Not a link to their statements.

Please provide the name of the nominee.


>>>>

 

[320 Years of History]

the Senate at least did its job-

And that's all I want/need them to do. Heck, they could bring the nomination to the floor and filibuster for the next year for all I care. At least they are doing their job.

I'm not keen on the politicization of court appointments, but I can live with it that aspect of the decision making process. It's the failure to formally make a decision when the body's sole job is to make formal decisions that I find objectionable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Huh? They're following the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule

What nominees didn't receive a floor vote under the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule?

Not a link to their statements.

Please provide the name of the nominee.


>>>>

What difference does it make? Was that what Biden and Schumer said at the time or not?

 

[Syriusly]

Republicans are merely following Schumer, Biden and Reid. Are you saying Democrats abdicated their obligations under the Constitution?

Are you saying that Republicans should act like Democrats?

Huh? They're following the Biden precedent and the Schumer Rule

So you are applauding the GOP for acting like Democrats.

 

[Lilah]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

If Obama says it was a mistake, and he does, is it your argument that for ideological purpose this time, you demand the right to commit the same mistake (for all elected Republican Senators) with the foresight that they will later rue the day they made it?

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway,

Politicizing it by actually doing his job under the Constitution to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

If Obama says it was a mistake, and he does, is it your argument that for ideological purpose this time, you demand the right to commit the same mistake (for all elected Republican Senators) with the foresight that they will later rue the day they made it?

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

 

[Lilah]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

there has never been a senate that refused to hold hearings.

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

Although the president has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to take any particular action in any particular time frame on that nominee. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the upreme Court … .” Federalist Paper 67 makes it clear that the president and the Senate jointly hold the
appointment power, which is distinct from the power to nominate. This means the Senate is free to exercise its own power as it sees fit, to approve or reject a nominee, or not to act upon a nomination.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

there has never been a senate that refused to hold hearings.

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

Although the president has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to take any particular action in any particular time frame on that nominee. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the upreme Court … .” Federalist Paper 67 makes it clear that the president and the Senate jointly hold the
appointment power, which is distinct from the power to nominate. This means the Senate is free to exercise its own power as it sees fit, to approve or reject a nominee, or not to act upon a nomination.

"judicial and other senior federal government positions".

again, never the supreme court.

and when you plagiarize nonsense from purported "sources", you should probably provide cites or you're violating copyright rules.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

If Obama says it was a mistake, and he does, is it your argument that for ideological purpose this time, you demand the right to commit the same mistake (for all elected Republican Senators) with the foresight that they will later rue the day they made it?

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

...a thought which inspires the question, "Should Senators refrain from doing their job in the last year or part thereof of their terms?" I wager Senators don't think so. LOL

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Well this is new- since the Senate hasn't rejected any nominee- the Senate majority have rejected the concept of providing advice and consent on nominees for the last quarter of the President's term in office.

Never thought I'd be quoting Sarah Palin to make a credible and valid point "Lipstick on a pig"

 

[WorldWatcher]

What difference does it make? Was that what Biden and Schumer said at the time or not?

Makes a huge difference.

1. His speech was about a Justice submitting for retirement, not dying and an immediate vacancy.

2. His speech was in June, Scalia passed in February. 3 Months until election. Not almost a year until a new President, leaving the seat vacant for 15 months or so.

2. He didn't call for the Senate not to have a vote, he asked the President not to nominate a candidate until after the election in the first week of November and if he did before that, that hearings would be held after the election.

3. Then he said confirmation hearings would be scheduled after the "political campaign season" had ended, which ends with the vote in November.

4. Finally, we're supposed to be better than the Dem's.




That is much different than Mitch McConnell declaring within hours of Scalia's death that the Senate wouldn't vote AT ALL on ANY nominee, that only a nominee would be considered when submitted by the next president.

Two very different things.

And as member of the GOP, I'm royally pissed that McConnell put us in this situation which will verly likely contribute to a Dem in the Oval Office nominating someone else into a Dem controlled Senate. All because of McConnell's big ******* mouth backing the Senate leadership into the corner.

[EDIT: Took out a nasty word since this is the CDZ.]


>>>>

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

Although the president has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to take any particular action in any particular time frame on that nominee. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the upreme Court … .” Federalist Paper 67 makes it clear that the president and the Senate jointly hold the
appointment power, which is distinct from the power to nominate. This means the Senate is free to exercise its own power as it sees fit, to approve or reject a nominee, or not to act upon a nomination.

Remember the GOP Noise about "Up or Down Vote!"????

And why are you conflating nominations to the Supreme Court, with other things?

 

[Lilah]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use -- other than blogs and right wing news sites?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing?

 

[Lilah]

Between 1987 and 1996, a total of 154 presidential nominees for judicial and other senior federal government positions failed because the Senate held no hearings on those nominations. Records from the Congressional Research Service show that among the people officially nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, at least eight of them (5 percent) have failed to achieve confirmation as a result of postponement or inaction by the Senate.

Although the president has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to take any particular action in any particular time frame on that nominee. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the upreme Court … .” Federalist Paper 67 makes it clear that the president and the Senate jointly hold the
appointment power, which is distinct from the power to nominate. This means the Senate is free to exercise its own power as it sees fit, to approve or reject a nominee, or not to act upon a nomination.

Remember the GOP Noise about "Up or Down Vote!"????

And why are you conflating nominations to the Supreme Court, with other things?

It must be very difficult for you to branch out and think.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing? Talk about dumb.

We are in the CD zone. I edited my comment out. I suggest you do too. Respect

 

[Lilah]

If you've read your history, this tactic is not something new. Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Of course Obama is going to say he regrets his actions to filibuster Alito; otherwise, how could he make the case that Republicans are not doing their job?

So you are admitting you are woefully ignorant of the fact that President Obama said he regretted that vote, long before this issue arose?

Are you saying the Senate is going to hold hearings and then reject the nomination?

What history resources do you use?

What do you expect President Obama to say, that he made a wise choice, therefore, he understands why the Republicans are dong what they are doing? Talk about dumb.

We are in the CD zone. I edited my comment out. I suggest you do too. Respect

What is a CD zone?