Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Faun]

Is it my imagination or is Donald Trump looking more Orange than usual...does he have "John Boehner Syndrome".....

Bill Maher solved that mystery....

 

[Faun]

The Republican Senate has done away with recess appointments.

The Senate cannot "do away" with recess appointments. They are a constitutionally granted power of the Presidency. What you are talking about is the fact that Obama has at times tried to make recess appointments in times when the Senate was not in recess. Where he has done so, the Supreme Court has found the appointments to be unlawful.

So no, Obama will not get a recess appointment.

The decision to use recess appointment powers is the President's, and his alone. The President does not "get" recess appointments. He creates recess appointments, when lawful to do so, if he chooses to do so. The Senate is in recess at this very moment and is scheduled to remain in recess until the 22nd of this month. Obama could create a recess appointment right now if he wanted to do so.

But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.

It's not so simple as that. But based on everything else you've said, I don't expect you to understand.

Of course they did. They effectively squashed Obama's authority to install judges through recess appointments by holding Pro Forma sessions.

 

[Faun]

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

I really want to kick McConnell in the face right about now. If this is the game he's going to play, Obama could end up making a recess appointment immediately, and then renew it in January. That would get us someone in there for two whole years, which at that point becomes alot more difficult to not be willing to confirm without blatantly acknowledging you're doing it for purely partisan reasons. But the even bigger risk is that right now there is a very real chance that we have a President Sanders come next January 21. And I really shudder to think who he might nominate.

The Republican Senate has done away with recess appointments. Yet another example where they shit on the Constitution. So no, Obama will not get a recess appointment.

But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.

A recess appointment is only good until the next session starts, at which time the nominee could be voted out.

Yeah, so?

 

[deltex1]

My notes show Obabble the moron, filibustering Alito's nomination.

Waddup wid dat, bruh?

 

[deltex1]

Of course he should do his constitutional duty. I'm sure The Right agrees.

As should the Senate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course they did. They effectively squashed Obama's authority to install judges through recess appointments by holding Pro Forma sessions.

The Senate determines when it is in session. That is the way it has always been. Get over it.

 

[Faun]

Of course they did. They effectively squashed Obama's authority to install judges through recess appointments by holding Pro Forma sessions.

The Senate determines when it is in session. That is the way it has always been. Get over it.

Where did I deny the Senate determines when they're in session?

Oh, wait -- I didn't. That's your strawman.

I pointed out how by using Pro Forma sessions, they've been denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course they did. They effectively squashed Obama's authority to install judges through recess appointments by holding Pro Forma sessions.

The Senate determines when it is in session. That is the way it has always been. Get over it.

Where did I deny the Senate determines when they're in session?

Oh, wait -- I didn't. That's your strawman.

I pointed out how by using Pro Forma sessions, they've been denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

Actually, you're whining about the fact that Obama doesn't get to decide when the Senate is in session. There's a word for that. Starts with an "E" and ends with "ment."

 

[Boss]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

 

[Dr Grump]

You're the one who wants him to do so, so answer your own question.

I was being 'slightly' sarcastic...

 

[JoeB131]

You're a big boy, you're capable of looking it up for yourself.

And your gloomy predictions not withstanding, I think we will take our chances. If the felon or mental patient win in November... oh fucking well. But hey... that kind of scary talk might work on McConnell.

Duly noted you can't make good on your claims, Boss Hogg.

By all means, take your chances. Obama will nominated the first Asian American Justice, and you guys will look pretty silly blocking her.

 

[Faun]

Of course they did. They effectively squashed Obama's authority to install judges through recess appointments by holding Pro Forma sessions.

The Senate determines when it is in session. That is the way it has always been. Get over it.

Where did I deny the Senate determines when they're in session?

Oh, wait -- I didn't. That's your strawman.

I pointed out how by using Pro Forma sessions, they've been denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

Actually, you're whining about the fact that Obama doesn't get to decide when the Senate is in session. There's a word for that. Starts with an "E" and ends with "ment."

Your ignorance is noted, but again, that is not my complaint.

 

[Faun]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

 

[Faun]

You're a big boy, you're capable of looking it up for yourself.

And your gloomy predictions not withstanding, I think we will take our chances. If the felon or mental patient win in November... oh fucking well. But hey... that kind of scary talk might work on McConnell.

Duly noted you can't make good on your claims, Boss Hogg.

By all means, take your chances. Obama will nominated the first Asian American Justice, and you guys will look pretty silly blocking her.

He lost that argument the instant he revealed he couldn't prove his bullshit.

 

[OldLady]

Well, I see the DailyKos and ThinkProgress have their talking points in order as all the typical drones are here today denying the Senate rule about election year justices. But it really doesn't matter because there will be no Republican support for any judicial nominee made by this president. If you tards want to fantasize there isn't a rule, that's fine... you're still not getting your liberal justice to replace Scalia. The next president will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

This election just became about that.

The major problem with this argument is that there has been no nomination made, and some have already decided that they won't play ball. No one says the senate has to agree with the nomination, but is their job to vet the nominee and make a decision. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever in simply refusing to do their job.

 

[OldLady]

Is it my imagination or is Donald Trump looking more Orange than usual...does he have "John Boehner Syndrome".....

This is Trump?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Is it my imagination or is Donald Trump looking more Orange than usual...does he have "John Boehner Syndrome".....

This is a Trump?

No but it Trumps the Bible as a source document for a Legal system

 

[Boss]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

No, the constitution says "the president shall appoint with advice and consent of congress."

AND... Congress can simply ignore any appointee he names like he ignores the law.

 

[Boss]

Well, I see the DailyKos and ThinkProgress have their talking points in order as all the typical drones are here today denying the Senate rule about election year justices. But it really doesn't matter because there will be no Republican support for any judicial nominee made by this president. If you tards want to fantasize there isn't a rule, that's fine... you're still not getting your liberal justice to replace Scalia. The next president will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

This election just became about that.

The major problem with this argument is that there has been no nomination made, and some have already decided that they won't play ball. No one says the senate has to agree with the nomination, but is their job to vet the nominee and make a decision. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever in simply refusing to do their job.

Again... they do not have to do a damn thing. They can simply carry on business as usual and table any nomination just as Harry Reid has tabled countless bills offered by Republicans. There is nothing in the constitution requiring them to take up consideration on any particular time schedule. They could also take an appointee into committee for any number of months and eventually declare... meh.. don't think so... pick someone else.

 

[Faun]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

No, the constitution says "the president shall appoint with advice and consent of congress."

AND... Congress can simply ignore any appointee he names like he ignores the law.

Dumbfuck -- they can't ignore the process. They don't have to confirm a nominee, but they are Constitutionally mandated to consider every nominee.

WTF is wrong with you rightards? Why do you hate the Constitution??