CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[Faun]

Even if that were the case, it's irrelevant since the proper procedure would have been to either hold a hearing and reject him if that were true; or notify the president to pick someone else.

That was not what the Senate did. They said no matter who Obama picks, they would not be considered because they did not want Obama filling the vacancy.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

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>

 

[Faun]

Scalia's seat opened in February and the Republican-led Congress announced then that any nominee Obama named would be denied a confirmation hearing.

But the reason doesn't matter. Thanks to Republicans, the Senate no longer has to confirm a president's nominee. No reason need be provided; no time limits matter. And since both political parties have a history of paybacks in Congress, you can count on Democrats denying a Republican president a Supreme Court appointment in the future.

At some point, a seat will open up when the president is Republican and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. It's just a matter of time.

The Senate has NEVER had to confirm a president's pick.

Better men than Garland have been Borked.

Holding hearings and denying a nominee is one thing; as that is not denying a president their constitutional role of filling vacancies. Rejecting any nominee so that a president can't fulfill their constitutional role is quite another. But as I predict, that shoe will end up on the other foot some day -- and it won't be pretty.

Well nothing except the Congress, which is the body to decide how many justices sit on that court.

Not congress, the Senate. The House has no say in the matter.

The Senate could let the Court drop to 7 and simply never replace the others, if they so desired. They won't, because they want to pack the court with Pro-Constitution picks to offset Kagan and her little dog Sotomayor.

Utter nonsense...

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States​

 

[Correll]

Nope. SOME conservative justices would vote to kick that question back to the states. There is not underlying solid belief on that.


"Liberals" justices all support blatant anti-white discrimination.

That's utter nonsense since you obviously don't know what every Liberal judge is thinking. Like try quoting Merrick Garland on that issue...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

We're talking about judges who are NOT on the Supreme Court. So g'head, quote Garland. We'll start with him.

We're talking about liberals democratic appointed Justices and their unconstitutional progressive judicial school of thought.

ANd none of them should be seated.

Umm... what you actually said was...

the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.​

...that refers to Liberal judges who are not on the Supreme Court.

Once more... let's start with Merrick Garland... quote him on the subject...

Your pretense that we can't judge people by their groups is noted and dismissed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Holding hearings and denying a nominee is one thing; as that is not denying a president their constitutional role of filling vacancies. Rejecting any nominee so that a president can't fulfill their constitutional role is quite another. But as I predict, that shoe will end up on the other foot some day -- and it won't be pretty.

While this will distress you, the filling of SCOTUS vacancies is rare. After Ginsburg goes it could be a decade until another vacancy.

Utter nonsense...

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States​

The Senate has no obligation to hold hearings nor confirm choices, they determine the number. The last Senate left the number at 8. Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

 

[Faun]

That's utter nonsense since you obviously don't know what every Liberal judge is thinking. Like try quoting Merrick Garland on that issue...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

We're talking about judges who are NOT on the Supreme Court. So g'head, quote Garland. We'll start with him.

We're talking about liberals democratic appointed Justices and their unconstitutional progressive judicial school of thought.

ANd none of them should be seated.

Umm... what you actually said was...

the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.​

...that refers to Liberal judges who are not on the Supreme Court.

Once more... let's start with Merrick Garland... quote him on the subject...

Your pretense that we can't judge people by their groups is noted and dismissed.

LOLOL

 

[Faun]

Holding hearings and denying a nominee is one thing; as that is not denying a president their constitutional role of filling vacancies. Rejecting any nominee so that a president can't fulfill their constitutional role is quite another. But as I predict, that shoe will end up on the other foot some day -- and it won't be pretty.

While this will distress you, the filling of SCOTUS vacancies is rare. After Ginsburg goes it could be a decade until another vacancy.

Utter nonsense...

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States​

The Senate has no obligation to hold hearings nor confirm choices, they determine the number. The last Senate left the number at 8. Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Umm... you responded to which body determines how many seats are on the Supreme Court by claiming it's the Senate and not the House who decides.

As you were shown, it's both. Congress decides.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Holding hearings and denying a nominee is one thing; as that is not denying a president their constitutional role of filling vacancies. Rejecting any nominee so that a president can't fulfill their constitutional role is quite another. But as I predict, that shoe will end up on the other foot some day -- and it won't be pretty.

While this will distress you, the filling of SCOTUS vacancies is rare. After Ginsburg goes it could be a decade until another vacancy.

Utter nonsense...

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States​

The Senate has no obligation to hold hearings nor confirm choices, they determine the number. The last Senate left the number at 8. Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Umm... you responded to which body determines how many seats are on the Supreme Court by claiming it's the Senate and not the House who decides.

As you were shown, it's both. Congress decides.

It is. The Senate has the power to confirm, hence they determine the number on the court.

 

[Faun]

Holding hearings and denying a nominee is one thing; as that is not denying a president their constitutional role of filling vacancies. Rejecting any nominee so that a president can't fulfill their constitutional role is quite another. But as I predict, that shoe will end up on the other foot some day -- and it won't be pretty.

While this will distress you, the filling of SCOTUS vacancies is rare. After Ginsburg goes it could be a decade until another vacancy.

Utter nonsense...

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States​

The Senate has no obligation to hold hearings nor confirm choices, they determine the number. The last Senate left the number at 8. Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Umm... you responded to which body determines how many seats are on the Supreme Court by claiming it's the Senate and not the House who decides.

As you were shown, it's both. Congress decides.

It is. The Senate has the power to confirm, hence they determine the number on the court.

So the Senate can put 11 justices on that bench then, right? They control the number of justices according to you.

 

[PredFan]

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

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.

 

[Faun]

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

They have never had a time period on the confirmation process. That is why it is not a 'new' rule. The power has always existed. It has never been used in this manner.

The political showmanship that declared the last one the 'Biden Rule' was nothing more than that - showmanship. There is no rule at all - ie is simply how the process works at this time and has worked for a long time.

Well we'll find out because I am certain the day will come when a Democrat-led Senate refuses to advise and consent for a Republican president's entire term; and we'll see how much the right howls about how the Senate can't do that.

I'm not saying it "violates" the Constitution's wording, but it certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution, which is to have the president and Senate work together to fill vacancies. To have either side abdicate their responsibilities is unconscionable.

Well we'll find out because I am certain the day will come when a Democrat-led Senate refuses to advise and consent for a Republican president's entire term; and we'll see how much the right howls about how the Senate can't do that.

I'm not saying it "violates" the Constitution's wording, but it certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution, which is to have the president and Senate work together to fill vacancies. To have either side abdicate their responsibilities is unconscionable.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. The Republicans took a HUGE gamble in not holding a hearing this time around. It may have paid off this time but I think that had the hold lasted much longer and the democrats beat that drum a lot more then they would have paid a much higher price. The setting was simply perfect for them to make this call - an angry subset of people not happy with the government or economy, a populist candidate that knows how to work the media and an enormously unpopular candidate that simply could not energize her supporters all cam together to make this work out for them. Should congress try to make this happen again for a much longer period of time I do not think that the electorate will allow them to get away with it - left or right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it's a Court appointment, which is how the Constitution declares things work, and it was blocked. We don't have any idea what "ideology" there was, since there was no hearing.

The Senate isn't compelled to act one way or another. Article II of the US Constitution doesn't mandate the Senate hold even one hearing. They've acted well within their rights. There is not one constitutional requirement compelling them to act. At all.

See my comments on that subject here here

 

[TemplarKormac]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

Show us where the constitution gives a time frame in which confirmation hearings must occur!

Show us what the question was.

There must be some question, something holding it up, right?
Did the POTUS fail to name a nominee? Nope, he did that.
Did the Senate chambers vanish into thin air? Nope, still there.
Was the nominee unavailable for a hearing? Doesn't seem so.

What's their question?

Perhaps the entire Senate took LSD and completely forgot what they were doing. Yeah that's it.
It was that Orrin Hatch hippie. He spiked the coffee.

Serious question. Where in the constitution does it require the Senate to act on a nomination? It doesn't. The Constitution basically grants the Senate autonomy in making the rules it is governed by, and if they don't want to hold a hearing, they don't have to.

Article 1 Section 5 of the US Constitution states

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Meaning, as I said before, the Senate is doing nothing wrong. The Senate is well within its constitutional rights to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But that process did not happen. The elephant is still in the room --- why were they afraid to hold hearings?

Some kind of testosterone power trip?

Because it's their constitutional right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't need a "time frame" when you already have an absolute statement plainly defying Constitutional process.

They aren't defying a Constitutional process. Show me where they are specifically violating the Constitution by refusing to consider Merrick Garland.

 

[FA_Q2]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

Show us where the constitution gives a time frame in which confirmation hearings must occur!

Show us what the question was.

There must be some question, something holding it up, right?
Did the POTUS fail to name a nominee? Nope, he did that.
Did the Senate chambers vanish into thin air? Nope, still there.
Was the nominee unavailable for a hearing? Doesn't seem so.

What's their question?

Perhaps the entire Senate took LSD and completely forgot what they were doing. Yeah that's it.
It was that Orrin Hatch hippie. He spiked the coffee.

Serious question. Where in the constitution does it require the Senate to act on a nomination? It doesn't. The Constitution basically grants the Senate autonomy in making the rules it is governed by, and if they don't want to hold a hearing, they don't have to.

Article 1 Section 5 of the US Constitution states

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Meaning, as I said before, the Senate is doing nothing wrong. The Senate is well within its constitutional rights to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing about it.

Constitution does not define what is wrong or right - it defines what is legal. It was clearly legal. We as the voters decide if we think it was wrong or not when we go to the ballot box and vote.

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Curious.

Why do you disagree?

 

[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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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 politicize it. The SCOTUS is supposed to rule objectively based on the law and Constitution, not rule based on its biases.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Remember guys, there is NO FUN in the CDZ.