Jump to content

The next Supreme Court justice...


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, MAD597 said:

Na they are violating it, advice and consent means we at least have hearings/Votes/interviews with nominee's and they at least acknowledge the defined process for this type of situation. They can advise and consent or not to the appointee's.

 

You'll need to cite to the portion of the Constitution that says "advice and consent means we at least have hearings/Votes/interviews."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Actually, I'll answer that but I want YOUR rules for this first.

You are supporting the GOP decision to block any and all Obama nominations regardless of who it is.  You say this is "out of the Democratic playbook" and that Republicans are just "dishing it back".  You want to ignore the serious damage this can do to the nomination process and the judiciary itself.

Okay, so when does this mythical rule that no president can appoint anybody to the Supreme Court begin?  Republicans say "during an election year" so that the public can weigh in.  Do you support future Senates blocking all nominations during the fourth years of the presidency, as well as the eighth year?  Do you support future Senates blocking all nominations during the midterm elections, where the composition of the Senate is at stake?  That would mean that no president can replace a Supreme Court vacancy for half of his term in office.  Do you support that as a matter of future policy?

I have no idea.  One would think at some point the American public would get tired of it and vote better people in.  But that hasn't happened yet, so we get the government we deserve.  

I'm not ignoring the serious damage this can do to the nomination process and the judiciary itself.  I'm simply insisting that if that damage is going to happen anyway (it is), that it happen both ways (until literally a few weeks ago, it hasn't).  It is far more damaging to let one party hold up nominations and obstruct nominees while the other party plays by the unwritten rules that you claim exist, but which are utterly ignored by Democrats, most particularly this President and his administration when they were all in the Senate.

Quote

Now, to your question.  Filibustering Alito was ridiculous and (note that I said this earlier in the thread, which you conveniently ignored) set a dangerous precedent.  I will say for probably the fifth or sixth time in this thread - filibustering any judicial nominee is wrong.  Filibustering legislation is wrong, in my view.  

As I also said in this thread (you really need to start over and read through this thing again) - Obama and others who did that are rank hypocrites now.  

As far as "blocking or trying to block" nominees, depends on the criteria.  Harriett Myers was blocked because she lacked the qualifications for the job.  Robert Bork was blocked because of concerns about ideological extremity...and also his connection to the Nixon administration.  The former was another precedent set by Democrats...they created ideology as a criteria for voting on Supreme Court justices.  I don't have a problem with that per se, but there you go.  The nominee after Bork withdrew because of a scandal involving marijuana use.  Democratic opposition to Clarence Thomas was the result of accusations of sexual harassment.  I'm not sure what's wrong with those, other than believing that ideology is an inappropriate consideration when voting on a nominee.

Regarding Alito, Democrats could have blocked his nomination.  Just less than half of them voted against cloture, allowing a vote and his eventual nomination.  So Democrats did not block Alito, even though some Democrats filibustered (which was wrong...I'll say that yet again).  

Also, your sweeping generalization in many posts in this thread about how "Democrats do whatever the **** they want" and how Republicans are supposedly showing "proper decorum" and respect is factually false.  80-90% of Republicans voted against the last two Obama nominees.  They didn't "roll over" for those nominees.  They just lacked the votes to block them.  That's how voting works.  Had they held the majority, they would have blocked those nominations and demanded more moderate justices.  So this fake notion that Republicans are ever so deferential and allow Democratic nominees while Democrats block any and all is factually false.  

So to sum up and to answer your question directly...the only nominees that were actually blocked by Democrats were done on "legitimate" grounds if you consider ideology legitimate.  The other nominees received hearings and votes, and only once did some Democrats try to block via a filibuster.  But over 20 Democrats broke with the filibuster and invoked cloture, so you can't say that "Democrats do whatever the **** they want" because they didn't actually block the nomination when they could have.  The others...Democrats voted en masse based on ideological objections to the nominees, exactly the same as Republicans did with both Sotomayor and Kagan.  

In none of those instances, however, did Democrats claim they would reject any nominee before one was named.  In none of those instances did Democrats refuse to hold confirmation hearings.  In none of those cases did Democrats refuse to allow a vote on the nominee.  And in one of the cases where they could have run out the clock - 1988 - they didn't and voted unanimously for Reagan's nominee in February of an election year.

But yeah, all of that is just exactly precisely identical to what Republicans are proposing now.  False equivalency.

So Alito.  That's it for you.

You say ideology is a criteria for voting on justices, and you don't have a problem with that.  I've consistently made the argument that Republicans' opposition to another Obama nominee to replace Scalia is based on ideology, and you DO have a problem with that.  So yeah.  False equivalency, so long as there is one set of rules for your side and another for the other side.  Bork was properly blocked, because of ideology.  Republicans can't block Obama nominees over ideology (or, at least, we'll pretend it isn't about ideology, but something else).

Thomas is an interesting example.  Yes, "accusations of sexual harassment."  Do you find ANYTHING in his record as a justice or prior, other than Anita Hill's allegations, that makes you think those accusations were true? For that matter, do you believe her allegations (that he made remarks about "Long Dong Silver" and pubic hairs on his Coke and pursued her sexually, which offended her so much that she left her job at the Office for Civil Rights …….. to follow Thomas and continue to work for him at the EEOC?

What if Republicans pull out hither or yon someone who "accuses" each of Obama's nominees of some crime or tort.  Are those the rules now?   Do you have a problem with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BrockSamson said:

This is the calculus they're doing right now. They'll delay and then if, come June, it's readily apparent that Hillary is going to win the presidency, they'll probably confirm whomever Obama nominates, assuming that person is at least somewhat centrist.

Of course, it's a dangerous game.  If they wait too long, it's possible they could influence Senate races negatively, lose the White House and the Senate, and in the next term (or two) see two or more liberal democratic nominees reach the bench.  Pan willing.

 

 

No doubt about it.  It's politically dangerous.

I'm arguing against the notion that it is unprecedented and reflects a lack of respect for the Constitution, etc.  I mean, drugging and raping women is bad, too, but I don't want to hear Bill Cosby lecture me about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

You'll need to cite to the portion of the Constitution that says "advice and consent means we at least have hearings/Votes/interviews."

Here's the Advice and Consent Clause:  "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . .  Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

And here is what McConnell is saying:

Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said in a floor speech before the Judiciary Committee Republicans met on Tuesday. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And this is what they said in the Letter: "The President MAY nominate . . . "

Also from McConnell:  Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” Mr. McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that certainly is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that.”

Mr. McConnell added: “But he also has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow.”

It is clear that the DUTY of the President is to nominate a Justice.  McConnell is flat at WRONG in his language that the President "may" nominate, or that he has the "right" to nominate or not nominate.  The Constitutional duty to nominate is clear.

The duty to appoint is also clear:  SHALL appoint.  Of course, the appoint requires the "Advice and Consent" . . . that second "shall" supports a determination that the "advice and consent" of the Senate is a duty of the Senate.  They can advise him to nominate someone else.  But they have to act  . . . . at least based on a literal reading of the Constitution.

McConnell is just B.S.'ing the troops with this statement.  According to him, for the President to carry out his Constitutionally mandated duty would be to engage in divisive political games. 

He know this . . .  He even said that he is doing what the Republican candidates want him to do.  (Politics!?)

Eight AND four years ago, the American people spoke.  They chose President Obama to carry out the duties of the Office of President of the United States for a term of four years.  The Senate Republicans are seeking to block the democratic process. 

(As I've said before, they don't have to confirm anyone . . . Heck, they could run out the clock by denying nominee after nominee . . . But they have to play the game.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, holymoses said:

Here's the Advice and Consent Clause:  "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . .  Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

And here is what McConnell is saying:

Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said in a floor speech before the Judiciary Committee Republicans met on Tuesday. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And this is what they said in the Letter: "The President MAY nominate . . . "

Also from McConnell:  Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” Mr. McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that certainly is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that.”

Mr. McConnell added: “But he also has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow.”

It is clear that the DUTY of the President is to nominate a Justice.  McConnell is flat at WRONG in his language that the President "may" nominate, or that he has the "right" to nominate or not nominate.  The Constitutional duty to nominate is clear.

The duty to appoint is also clear:  SHALL appoint.  Of course, the appoint requires the "Advice and Consent" . . . that second "shall" supports a determination that the "advice and consent" of the Senate is a duty of the Senate.  They can advise him to nominate someone else.  But they have to act  . . . . at least based on a literal reading of the Constitution.

McConnell is just B.S.'ing the troops with this statement.  According to him, for the President to carry out his Constitutionally mandated duty would be to engage in divisive political games. 

He know this . . .  He even said that he is doing what the Republican candidates want him to do.  (Politics!?)

Eight AND four years ago, the American people spoke.  They chose President Obama to carry out the duties of the Office of President of the United States for a term of four years.  The Senate Republicans are seeking to block the democratic process. 

(As I've said before, they don't have to confirm anyone . . . Heck, they could run out the clock by denying nominee after nominee . . . But they have to play the game.)

Yep, I'm under no false delusion that the GOP would not fight tooth an nail against ANYONE Obama nominated and that is their right. The GOP doesn't even want to go through the effort of vetting the nominations cause it would make them look bad trying every way possible to deny every person. The public would see how petty they are. So the GOP instead of taking the effort and brunt of going through the process just wants to snuff the process all together and risk public outcry being obstructionists. 

The wording is clear as you pointed out the process is required, President to nominate Senate to Advise and Consent. Saying NO to even beginning the process is not advisement or consent that is for sure.

The GOP is just making crap up as they go along in order to favor them, that is all this is.

Edited by MAD597
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, holymoses said:

Here's the Advice and Consent Clause:  "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . .  Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

And here is what McConnell is saying:

Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said in a floor speech before the Judiciary Committee Republicans met on Tuesday. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And this is what they said in the Letter: "The President MAY nominate . . . "

Also from McConnell:  Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” Mr. McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that certainly is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that.”

Mr. McConnell added: “But he also has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow.”

It is clear that the DUTY of the President is to nominate a Justice.  McConnell is flat at WRONG in his language that the President "may" nominate, or that he has the "right" to nominate or not nominate.  The Constitutional duty to nominate is clear.

The duty to appoint is also clear:  SHALL appoint.  Of course, the appoint requires the "Advice and Consent" . . . that second "shall" supports a determination that the "advice and consent" of the Senate is a duty of the Senate.  They can advise him to nominate someone else.  But they have to act  . . . . at least based on a literal reading of the Constitution.

McConnell is just B.S.'ing the troops with this statement.  According to him, for the President to carry out his Constitutionally mandated duty would be to engage in divisive political games. 

He know this . . .  He even said that he is doing what the Republican candidates want him to do.  (Politics!?)

Eight AND four years ago, the American people spoke.  They chose President Obama to carry out the duties of the Office of President of the United States for a term of four years.  The Senate Republicans are seeking to block the democratic process. 

(As I've said before, they don't have to confirm anyone . . . Heck, they could run out the clock by denying nominee after nominee . . . But they have to play the game.)

I was wondering the other day whether a presidential nominee for the judicial branch (or even executive branch) could bring a lawsuit against Congress if their nomination process were delayed for an extended period of time.  Let's say that the president appointed someone and Congress didn't start a process for two years.  Would that violate the the intent of the Constitution regarding the President's appointment power, given that Congress is essentially usurping that power by failing to act?

Regarding your post, I understand the point you're making, I'm just not convinced that they are required to act.  But I could be wrong, and it would be a *very* interesting court case for someone to bring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I was wondering the other day whether a presidential nominee for the judicial branch (or even executive branch) could bring a lawsuit against Congress if their nomination process were delayed for an extended period of time.  Let's say that the president appointed someone and Congress didn't start a process for two years.  Would that violate the the intent of the Constitution regarding the President's appointment power, given that Congress is essentially usurping that power by failing to act?

Regarding your post, I understand the point you're making, I'm just not convinced that they are required to act.  But I could be wrong, and it would be a *very* interesting court case for someone to bring.

They are required to participate in the process they can deny, inquire, vote down as much as they want from their.

Ironically Obama could sue and bring this issue up to the SCOTUS. That would be funny

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MAD597 said:

They are required to participate in the process they can deny, inquire, vote down as much as they want from their.

Ironically Obama could sue and bring this issue up to the SCOTUS. That would be funny

 

I'm not sure about any of this, but from what I have read, I think it would work out something like this.

1) Obama nominates the nominee.

2) The nominee would arguably have a liberty interest in the the confirmation process.

3) The Senate Fails to act.

4) The Nominee files a lawsuit compelling the Senate to engage in the confirmation process.  The lawsuit would be filed in a District favorably to the nominee and Obama.

5) The District Court compels a confirmation hearing.

6) Senate Republicans appeal . . . to the Supreme Court

7) The Supreme Court is tied 4-4.

9) The Lower Court's decision would therefore be binding.

10) The nominee is denied confirmation

11) Rinse, Repeat until January 20, 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, holymoses said:

I'm not sure about any of this, but from what I have read, I think it would work out something like this.

1) Obama nominates the nominee.

2) The nominee would arguably have a liberty interest in the the confirmation process.

3) The Senate Fails to act.

4) The Nominee files a lawsuit compelling the Senate to engage in the confirmation process.  The lawsuit would be filed in a District favorably to the nominee and Obama.

5) The District Court compels a confirmation hearing.

6) Senate Republicans appeal . . . to the Supreme Court

7) The Supreme Court is tied 4-4.

9) The Lower Court's decision would therefore be binding.

10) The nominee is denied confirmation

11) Rinse, Repeat until January 20, 2017.

At this point if the GOP wants to play this game let this happen. During this process it will come out and be broadcasted all over the news that the constitution is clear and the GOP are denying Obama his rights as President.

Then Hillary gets elected and nominates the most liberal judge she can find and by then hopefully the senate has swung Dem and the GOP completely shoot themselves in the foot.

The GOP are being short sighted idiots as their is very little chance they come out ahead in this.

Edited by MAD597
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

And now Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada, is being floated as a potential nominee right after the GOP blocked any and all nominees from even being considered.

 

1 hour ago, Andrews_31 said:

Brian Sandoval, NV GOP Gov being vetted...................................

That would be very, very interesting.  For a lot of reasons both obvious and not so obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, holymoses said:

Here's the Advice and Consent Clause:  "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . .  Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

And here is what McConnell is saying:

Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said in a floor speech before the Judiciary Committee Republicans met on Tuesday. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And this is what they said in the Letter: "The President MAY nominate . . . "

Also from McConnell:  Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” Mr. McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that certainly is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that.”

Mr. McConnell added: “But he also has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow.”

It is clear that the DUTY of the President is to nominate a Justice.  McConnell is flat at WRONG in his language that the President "may" nominate, or that he has the "right" to nominate or not nominate.  The Constitutional duty to nominate is clear.

The duty to appoint is also clear:  SHALL appoint.  Of course, the appoint requires the "Advice and Consent" . . . that second "shall" supports a determination that the "advice and consent" of the Senate is a duty of the Senate.  They can advise him to nominate someone else.  But they have to act  . . . . at least based on a literal reading of the Constitution.

McConnell is just B.S.'ing the troops with this statement.  According to him, for the President to carry out his Constitutionally mandated duty would be to engage in divisive political games. 

He know this . . .  He even said that he is doing what the Republican candidates want him to do.  (Politics!?)

Eight AND four years ago, the American people spoke.  They chose President Obama to carry out the duties of the Office of President of the United States for a term of four years.  The Senate Republicans are seeking to block the democratic process. 

(As I've said before, they don't have to confirm anyone . . . Heck, they could run out the clock by denying nominee after nominee . . . But they have to play the game.)

The second "shall" does no such thing.  Grammatically, it still modifies "President," not "Senate" (technically, it modifies "he," but "he" is a referent to "President").  Using your reading, furthermore, Obama was violating the Constitution when he voted for filibuster.  After all, if the second "shall" indicates that "advice and consent" is a duty of the Senate, such that they "have to act," isn't a vote to prevent an action -- a vote on a nominee -- a similar shirking of this supposed duty?

There is no "shall" for the Senate.  The Senate gives advice and consent.  They do not have to confirm, or even vote on, anyone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MAD597 said:

They are required to participate in the process they can deny, inquire, vote down as much as they want from their.

Ironically Obama could sue and bring this issue up to the SCOTUS. That would be funny

 

"Participate" in what "process?"

Isn't refusing to bring a nominee for a vote participating in the process?  Are they required to participate only in ways you approve of?  If the Senate as an elected body determines it does not wish to appoint a particular nominee, then that is participation.  Participation and approval are not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, I love this notion that Democrats can filibuster and block and slander any nominee they wish, but if Republicans say "you know, as part of our advice and consent process, we don't think a vote on further candidates is warranted until after the election," they are violating the Constitution and should be sued to conform with its strictures.

Gored oxen and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

Antonin Scalia - Roman Catholic

John Roberts - Roman Catholic

Anthony Kennedy - Roman Catholic

Clarence Thomas - Roman Catholic

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish

Stephen Breyer - Jewish

Samuel Alito - Roman Catholic

Sonia Sotomayor - Roman Catholic

Elena Kagan - Jewish

tV6rilw.png

SCOTUS belongs to God's favored. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...