CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[FA_Q2]

It seems that the nation as a whole believes as you do that it was right. I disagree tbh.

Curious.

Why do you disagree?

I think that the senate should have went with the proceedings and voted him down. I inherently disagree with the senate using process to kill things in order to give its members cover from actually voting. Anything that has a remote chance of passing or requires proper debate should be brought to the senate floor. I do not agree with the massive amount of power that a single senator has when declared the majority leader.

You make a compelling point. But I felt in this instance that the Senate Republicans were reflecting my views as a voter by ensuring that a Justice friendlier to my conservative views would be appointed by blocking Garland.

Like I said, they could have done so by actually voting him down rather than escaping the vote altogether. Having the vote was, IMHO, the correct thing to do. The only reason that I can see that they dod not down vote Garland, as they clearly had the totals to do so, is that they were giving cover to some of the senators in contested districts to not have to take that vote. I find that underhanded politics.

On the other hand, I didn't like the political nature of the Supreme Court before Scalia died, and I still don't now. The Senate and both new president and old are trying to do that. The SCOTUS is supposed to rule objectively based on the law and Constitution, not rule based on its biases.

I can agree with that but I do not see how you remove such an element. Conservatives and liberals interpenetrate the constitution differently and it is only natural that you would want to ensure that someone you were appointing to the bench defends the constitution. Just take the general welfare clause. A conservative could not, in good consciousness, vote for a judge that interpreted that line the way a liberal person would. Such would mean that the judge would not uphold the constitution. Same goes for the inverse.

I do not like the political rigging of the bench either. I would be far less happy though if the bench were occupied by a bunch of judges that see the general welfare clause to mean that the government can do whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare. Catch 22.

 

[PredFan]

There is no part of the constitution that states the vacancy must be filled. In fact the first SCOTUS only had 6 or 7 judges on it.

The president has no obligation to fill the spot.

That's utter nonsense as the president does not decide how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Congress decides and the number is currently nine. As to whether or not the president is obligated to fill s vacancy on that bench, I'll take the Constitution's word over yours.

He . . . shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...​

You fail to understand the meaning of "shall" in that context. You are incorrect.

shall

used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>

Context. He is not lawfully required to do so.

The argument is moot however because no president refuses to do so. None of that means that congress has any obligation to even discuss the pick.

That's ok, you stick with your opinion. I'm going with the actual definition of the word.

Whatever makes you happy, still Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

 

[Faun]

That's utter nonsense as the president does not decide how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Congress decides and the number is currently nine. As to whether or not the president is obligated to fill s vacancy on that bench, I'll take the Constitution's word over yours.

He . . . shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...​

You fail to understand the meaning of "shall" in that context. You are incorrect.

shall

used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>

Context. He is not lawfully required to do so.

The argument is moot however because no president refuses to do so. None of that means that congress has any obligation to even discuss the pick.

That's ok, you stick with your opinion. I'm going with the actual definition of the word.

Whatever makes you happy, still Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

So get this... I'm reading there may be an opportunity for Democrats to get Garland on the bench after all. It sounds rather underhanded and I doubt they'll do it... but.....

.... there's a small window ... a very small window .... maybe only minutes long. In between sessions, from 12 noon until the newly elected Senators are sworn in .... for those few minutes, there are only 64 Senators, 34 of whom are Democrat.

Do you see where this is goin'...?

So anyway, during those few minutes, Democrats can call for a vote to pick a party leader who, since Democrats would be the majority for those few minutes, would be the Senate Majority Leader.

As Senate Majority Leader, he can use the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees, which Republicans are likely to do anyway ... and then vote to confirm Garland. Republicans would be helpless to stop them.

Obama appoints him and voilà.

 

[FA_Q2]

You fail to understand the meaning of "shall" in that context. You are incorrect.

shall

used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>

Context. He is not lawfully required to do so.

The argument is moot however because no president refuses to do so. None of that means that congress has any obligation to even discuss the pick.

That's ok, you stick with your opinion. I'm going with the actual definition of the word.

Whatever makes you happy, still Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

So get this... I'm reading there may be an opportunity for Democrats to get Garland on the bench after all. It sounds rather underhanded and I doubt they'll do it... but.....

.... there's a small window ... a very small window .... maybe only minutes long. In between sessions, from 12 noon until the newly elected Senators are sworn in .... for those few minutes, there are only 64 Senators, 34 of whom are Democrat.

Do you see where this is goin'...?

So anyway, during those few minutes, Democrats can call for a vote to pick a party leader who, since Democrats would be the majority for those few minutes, would be the Senate Majority Leader.

As Senate Majority Leader, he can use the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees, which Republicans are likely to do anyway ... and then vote to confirm Garland. Republicans would be helpless to stop them.

Obama appoints him and voilà.

Not sure if you can change rules like that this fast. This does not really sound kosher.

 

[Faun]

shall

used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>

Context. He is not lawfully required to do so.

The argument is moot however because no president refuses to do so. None of that means that congress has any obligation to even discuss the pick.

That's ok, you stick with your opinion. I'm going with the actual definition of the word.

Whatever makes you happy, still Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

So get this... I'm reading there may be an opportunity for Democrats to get Garland on the bench after all. It sounds rather underhanded and I doubt they'll do it... but.....

.... there's a small window ... a very small window .... maybe only minutes long. In between sessions, from 12 noon until the newly elected Senators are sworn in .... for those few minutes, there are only 64 Senators, 34 of whom are Democrat.

Do you see where this is goin'...?

So anyway, during those few minutes, Democrats can call for a vote to pick a party leader who, since Democrats would be the majority for those few minutes, would be the Senate Majority Leader.

As Senate Majority Leader, he can use the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees, which Republicans are likely to do anyway ... and then vote to confirm Garland. Republicans would be helpless to stop them.

Obama appoints him and voilà.

Not sure if you can change rules like that this fast. This does not really sound kosher.

I'm not sure either. Seems to me all the Democrats need to do is give one day's notice of a rules change on filibusters and vote super quick. Republicans, I imagine, would try to use a quorum call to delay any action. Democrats would only have to do a roll call, again, super quick.

Get it all done in just a few minutes and it just might stick.

But again, I believe neither the Democrats would stoop that low nor would Garland accept a Supreme Court seat in such a manner.

 

[FA_Q2]

Context. He is not lawfully required to do so.

The argument is moot however because no president refuses to do so. None of that means that congress has any obligation to even discuss the pick.

That's ok, you stick with your opinion. I'm going with the actual definition of the word.

Whatever makes you happy, still Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

So get this... I'm reading there may be an opportunity for Democrats to get Garland on the bench after all. It sounds rather underhanded and I doubt they'll do it... but.....

.... there's a small window ... a very small window .... maybe only minutes long. In between sessions, from 12 noon until the newly elected Senators are sworn in .... for those few minutes, there are only 64 Senators, 34 of whom are Democrat.

Do you see where this is goin'...?

So anyway, during those few minutes, Democrats can call for a vote to pick a party leader who, since Democrats would be the majority for those few minutes, would be the Senate Majority Leader.

As Senate Majority Leader, he can use the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees, which Republicans are likely to do anyway ... and then vote to confirm Garland. Republicans would be helpless to stop them.

Obama appoints him and voilà.

Not sure if you can change rules like that this fast. This does not really sound kosher.

I'm not sure either. Seems to me all the Democrats need to do is give one day's notice of a rules change on filibusters and vote super quick. Republicans, I imagine, would try to use a quorum call to delay any action. Democrats would only have to do a roll call, again, super quick.

Get it all done in just a few minutes and it just might stick.

But again, I believe neither the Democrats would stoop that low nor would Garland accept a Supreme Court seat in such a manner.

I do not think that there is a level that politicians of any stripe will not stoop. They are pros at stooping.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Every single SCOTUS appointment is political. The confirmation process is political. This still surprises you?

 

[FA_Q2]

Upon a little more reading, I do not see how such a scenario would fly considering this section:

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

They would not have a quorum untill the new senators are seated and then, constitutionally, they could not do business.

 

[Faun]

Upon a little more reading, I do not see how such a scenario would fly considering this section:

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

They would not have a quorum untill the new senators are seated and then, constitutionally, they could not do business.

Of course they would have a quorum. There are only 64 Senators until the rest are sworn in. They need only 33 Senators for a quorum and there will be 34 Democrats. But Democrats would need at least 33 to go along with this... they would need Garland to go along with it... and they would need to be well prepared to accomplish it within the small time frame available.

 

[FA_Q2]

Upon a little more reading, I do not see how such a scenario would fly considering this section:

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

They would not have a quorum untill the new senators are seated and then, constitutionally, they could not do business.

Of course they would have a quorum. There are only 64 Senators until the rest are sworn in. They need only 33 Senators for a quorum and there will be 34 Democrats. But Democrats would need at least 33 to go along with this... they would need Garland to go along with it... and they would need to be well prepared to accomplish it within the small time frame available.

I don't think it would qualify for a quorum because it would mean you are not counting 33 senators simply because they have not been sworn in yet. We will see but it is highly unlikely that they will try something like this - the ramifications could be far reaching.

 

[Faun]

Upon a little more reading, I do not see how such a scenario would fly considering this section:

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

They would not have a quorum untill the new senators are seated and then, constitutionally, they could not do business.

Of course they would have a quorum. There are only 64 Senators until the rest are sworn in. They need only 33 Senators for a quorum and there will be 34 Democrats. But Democrats would need at least 33 to go along with this... they would need Garland to go along with it... and they would need to be well prepared to accomplish it within the small time frame available.

I don't think it would qualify for a quorum because it would mean you are not counting 33 senators simply because they have not been sworn in yet. We will see but it is highly unlikely that they will try something like this - the ramifications could be far reaching.

They're not Senators yet. There would be 64 Senators. That would be the entirety of the Senate until others are sworn in. Republicans would likely stall with a quorum call but if they're well organized, Democrats could do a roll call very quickly.

There's also the possibility Obama could fill Scalia's seat during those minutes with an intersession recess appointment. Though that would not be a lifetime appointment and Garland would be out at the end of the next session.

 

[PredFan]

I doubt seriously that the Democrats will do any of that. Like 0bama, the M.O. of the DNC and all of it's politicians is not to actually do anything, but to give the impression that they are trying but the big bad GOP is stopping them. The left needs two things: Victims, and an opponent to blame. Having a SCOTUS that is conservative means they can continue the ruse for the forseeable future.

 

[PK1]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.

The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

 

[PredFan]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.

The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

Irrelevant. Congress has no obligation to act on the nomination at all. In fact the first SCOTUS I believe only has 6 or 7 judges.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They did what the government was designed to do by our constitution. The people spoke in the 2014 elections and it was rejection of where the country was headed. With the majority in the legislative branch, the representatives voted the way their constiuents asked them to vote, by blocking a nominee who holds a loose view of the constitution, from a POTUS with a very loose view of the constitution/BOR. I'm sorry it didn't go the way you wanted it, but that's the way it's designed, so people like you who think they know more than everyone else opposed to them are less able to shove it down the oppositions throat.

If your worried about trumps potential nominations then you should concentrate on limiting the SCOTUS power back to what it should be. Which is simply voting on whether or not Bill A violates the constitution or not. Not making political statements, not making decisions based off of case law, and not syphoning power to the exucutive branch and the fed. If you get that, then whoever trump picks won't be a big deal for, since they will be upholding he constitution/BOR, and it's separation of powers, and not imposing their political beliefs onto you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They did what the government was designed to do by our constitution. The people spoke in the 2014 elections and it was rejection of where the country was headed. With the majority in the legislative branch, the representatives voted the way their constiuents asked them to vote, by blocking a nominee who holds a loose view of the constitution, from a POTUS with a very loose view of the constitution/BOR. I'm sorry it didn't go the way you wanted it, but that's the way it's designed, so people like you who think they know more than everyone else opposed to them are less able to shove it down the oppositions throat.

If your worried about trumps potential nominations then you should concentrate on limiting the SCOTUS power back to what it should be. Which is simply voting on whether or not Bill A violates the constitution or not. Not making political statements, not making decisions based off of case law, and not syphoning power to the exucutive branch and the fed. If you get that, then whoever trump picks won't be a big deal for, since they will be upholding he constitution/BOR, and it's separation of powers, and not imposing their political beliefs onto you.

Nice bullshit.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They did what the government was designed to do by our constitution. The people spoke in the 2014 elections and it was rejection of where the country was headed. With the majority in the legislative branch, the representatives voted the way their constiuents asked them to vote, by blocking a nominee who holds a loose view of the constitution, from a POTUS with a very loose view of the constitution/BOR. I'm sorry it didn't go the way you wanted it, but that's the way it's designed, so people like you who think they know more than everyone else opposed to them are less able to shove it down the oppositions throat.

If your worried about trumps potential nominations then you should concentrate on limiting the SCOTUS power back to what it should be. Which is simply voting on whether or not Bill A violates the constitution or not. Not making political statements, not making decisions based off of case law, and not syphoning power to the exucutive branch and the fed. If you get that, then whoever trump picks won't be a big deal for, since they will be upholding he constitution/BOR, and it's separation of powers, and not imposing their political beliefs onto you.

Nice bullshit.

You're going to have to be more specific than that.

 

[2aguy]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.

The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.

The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

Irrelevant. Congress has no obligation to act on the nomination at all. In fact the first SCOTUS I believe only has 6 or 7 judges.

I believe you are correct, and the constitution does not specify the number of justices.

 

[PK1]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.