DC Tom Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 "I know you are but what am I" does not solve problems. The current issue in this thread is squarely on the Republicans. And sure, Biden said this and other Dems are asses. None of that is relevant to this issue right now. It's a sentence. It doesn't require a deep textual analysis to get to the bottom of it. The President and Senate have a job to do. If the Senate looks at each candidate and with their "advise and consent" power chooses to shoot them down, they are at least doing their job. What they've chosen to do instead, before a candidate is even nominated, is ignore their Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" on the president's nominee. It's a step far even for these jokers. You can defend this based on procedure but that's a fool's argument. Both of us know that what's happening here is horrible governance and the Senate is dodging its responsibility for political gain (or loss as the case will be). If we get down to 0 Supreme Court Justices as each one dies off and the Senate plays 20 years of procedural pocket pool, does procedure still trump the Constitution? Hold these jerkoffs to a higher standard, or at least a standard that is "do your f%^&ing job." I stopped holding these jerkoffs to any standard about a decade ago. "Don't try to teach a pig to sing..." and all that. I have no say, and they don't represent me. But as to your Constitutional mandate of "advise and consent..." the Constitution is notably silent on HOW that advice and consent is to be provided. It merely notes the role the Senate plays, but says nothing about how the Senate plays it. It actually says nothing at all about the procedural question of HOW "advise and consent" is to be provided. It certainly doesn't mandate a floor vote. (For that matter, the Constitution doesn't even mandate how many justices are required for the court.) So whether I agree with it or not, it's hardly a fool's errand to defend the Senate's actions on the simple basis that the Senate defines the Senate's procedure. Quite the opposite: it's foolish to argue that a Senate procedure is unconstitutional, when the Constitution is absolutely silent on Congress' procedural matters. Obama could consult with the Senate Majority and Minority leaders and make the appointment, and say he had the Senate's "advice and consent," and while it would be a violation of Senate procedure, it would still be strictly Constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 No wonder Trump & Sanders are getting a lot of votes. There are a lot of nutbags in the world who'll believe everything they read. You ain't lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 One more to the nutter pile: http://www.abreureport.com/2016/02/secret-societies-at-war-was-scalia-put.html A secret society founded by Count Franz Anton von Sporck... Sporck...? Spock...? Nimoy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 A secret society founded by Count Franz Anton von Sporck... Sporck...? Spock...? Nimoy? I was waiting for someone to pick up on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 A secret society founded by Count Franz Anton von Sporck... Sporck...? Spock...? Nimoy? No, Sporck as in: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Obama could consult with the Senate Majority and Minority leaders and make the appointment, and say he had the Senate's "advice and consent," and while it would be a violation of Senate procedure, it would still be strictly Constitutional. Are you making an argument in my favor here? We have a voluminous US Code and CFRs that grew out of our Constitution, as well as a fountain of case law. The Senate procedure stemmed from this simple document as well. But I'll say it again, "advise and consent" is in the document. If the Senate gets a nominee (whatever poor soul gets that "honor"), they should do their job. Creating a new procedure that amounts to "We will not do what the Constituion tells us to do" is a dangerous game. Not as dangerous as undeclared wars and a million other abuses of power that usually stem from an overreaching President but still bad, and likely to cost the Republicans, but not more than running Trump as their guy. Edited February 26, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 No wonder Trump & Sanders are getting a lot of votes. There are a lot of nutbags in the world who'll believe everything they read. You ain't lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I never miss a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Are you making an argument in my favor here? We have a voluminous US Code and CFRs that grew out of our Constitution, as well as a fountain of case law. The Senate procedure stemmed from this simple document as well. But I'll say it again, "advise and consent" is in the document. If the Senate gets a nominee (whatever poor soul gets that "honor"), they should do their job. Creating a new procedure that amounts to "We will not do what the Constituion tells us to do" is a dangerous game. Not as dangerous as undeclared wars and a million other abuses of power that usually stem from an overreaching President but still bad, and likely to cost the Republicans, but not more than running Trump as their guy. Just try to understand that there's a difference between US law and regulation, and Senate rules of procedure. And "advise and consent" is determined by the Senate rules, and not federal law or regulation. AND considered to start when the nomination is received by the Senate, and not with the floor vote (in other words, the Senate Chair (whoever that is) can decide to not even refer the nomination to committee.) In this case, the Republicans can exercise "advice and consent," by Senate rules as allowed by the Constitution, by the simple expedient of referring the nomination to committee, and let it sit there forever. And THAT is considered "advise and consent" as well. And that's their worst-case, if they can't refuse the nomination (i.e. refuse to take possession of the piece of paper from the White House saying "I nominate...") because Biden happens to show up that day and act as Senate President. If they have to choose a President pro tem - presumably Senate Majority Leader - he can decide to exercise "advise and consent" when he decides whether or not to accept or refuse the nomination. But ultimately, what this all boils down to is that there is NO REQUIREMENT ANYWHERE that a nomination receive a floor vote. The Constitutional requirement is satisfied by whatever rules the Senate decides satisfy it. You don't have to like it. I don't either. But that is how it works, and it is legal and constitutional. If you want to call for a Constitutional Amendment to define "Advise and Consent' as a floor vote, go ahead - I'd probably support it, at a three-fifths or two-thirds majority. But until you do, that's the Constitutional procedure, and the Senate would be fulfilling its Constitutional responsibility by letting a nomination sit and rot in committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 No, Sporck as in: A titanium spork? I want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 https://theintercept.com/2016/02/27/antonin-scalia-the-billion-dollar-supreme-court-justice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 https://theintercept.com/2016/02/27/antonin-scalia-the-billion-dollar-supreme-court-justice/ Only a billion dollars? How much money does the race baiters, abortionists, and climate alarmists get from the liberal justices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Only a billion dollars? How much money does the race baiters, abortionists, and climate alarmists get from the liberal justices? :eyeroll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Justice Thomas breaks 10-year silence in court USA TODAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 "He didn't belong to the secret society" -- so I guess Trump can be crossed off the list of suspects in Scalia's murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Sad....................cause it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-republican-senate-supreme-court-block-220480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-republican-senate-supreme-court-block-220480 It's dumb of the GOP to suggest Obama not nominate someone or threaten to block a nominee before one is presented. On the other hand if someone is nominated, they should only confirm that person if they are satisfied with that person's qualifications and judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) It's dumb of the GOP to suggest Obama not nominate someone or threaten to block a nominee before one is presented. On the other hand if someone is nominated, they should only confirm that person if they are satisfied with that person's qualifications and judgment. Yes. The process is actually that simple and the GOP will hurt their credibility with their stance. Obama is just waiting for the right moment in the campaign to make the nomination. The 15th as Trump more or less sows up nomination would be a good time. Edited March 9, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Yes. The process is actually that simple and the GOP will hurt their credibility with their stance. Yeah, because the GOP's strength right now is its credibility. You really think anyone gives a crap about a party who's presidential front runner is the political equivalent of the Shamwow guy? Let Barry recommend someone. Let the Senate consider. And consider. And consider. Until the next president is elected. Edited March 9, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts