Observer Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Let Barry recommend someone. Let the Senate consider. And consider. And consider. Until the next president is elected. The GOP has said they won't do what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The GOP has said they won't do what you just said. The Senate can't do anything to prevent President Obama from nominating. The Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't have to do a damn thing once they've received the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The GOP has said they won't do what you just said. Good. Then let them consider the idea of not considering. It's probably the biggest issue facing the long-term prospects of this country, and letting Barry replace a true and genuine protector of this country's rules of law with one of his special snowflakes is not acceptable to me. Since Harry Reid has decided his can bitchslap the Senate rules to his liking, it's time he take it in return. What's gonna happen? The opinion of the Senate falls to 6%? Who the phuck cares at this point? Besides, once Trump gets the nomination, Hillary wins in a landslide and none of this will matter. May as well stand firm while there is anything resembling a spine left in the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Good. Then let them consider the idea of not considering. It's probably the biggest issue facing the long-term prospects of this country, and letting Barry replace a true and genuine protector of this country's rules of law with one of his special snowflakes is not acceptable to me. Since Harry Reid has decided his can bitchslap the Senate rules to his liking, it's time he take it in return. What's gonna happen? The opinion of the Senate falls to 6%? Who the phuck cares at this point? Besides, once Trump gets the nomination, Hillary wins in a landslide and none of this will matter. May as well stand firm while there is anything resembling a spine left in the GOP. It's not acceptable but it's how the system is supposed to work. And Obama is not about to nominate a dead-on-arrival nominee. He's looking for a middle-ground person. He knows he can't get away with a far left nominee. Now, given the Sentate's refusal to do its duty, who knows who Obama will nominate. Maybe he can nominate Bernie Sanders so Clinton can relax and get ready for her double digit win over Trump. The Senate can't do anything to prevent President Obama from nominating. The Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't have to do a damn thing once they've received the nomination. They don't have to do a damn thing except "advise and consent" as required by the Constitution. If you're a DC-Tomist, your argument is that the Senate has to do its duty under the Constitution but on whatever procedural terms it wants to and in fact can put a 350 year delay into the procedure if it desires, and can also choose to advise on nominees who can pass the Saltine test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 They don't have to do a damn thing except "advise and consent" as required by the Constitution. If you're a DC-Tomist, your argument is that the Senate has to do its duty under the Constitution but on whatever procedural terms it wants to and in fact can put a 350 year delay into the procedure if it desires, and can also choose to advise on nominees who can pass the Saltine test. I'm an Origionalist. As the Constitution does not provide a definition or process by which the Senate is required to advise and consent, it leaves those determinations to the Senate itself. This is intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Reminder: After Estrada withdrew his nomination that was held up in the Senate for two years Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said the withdrawal was a "a victory for the Constitution.". Harry Reid -- In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees. Senator Schumer in mid-*2007* (not yet an election year): We Democrats should not confirm another Bush SCOTUS appointee ***** So history has already shown that the democrats believe that the "advise and consent" responsibility has included filibustering and withholding a vote. Democrats long ago established that ideological disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for blocking a Supreme Court appointee. "If anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm an Origionalist. As the Constitution does not provide a definition or process by which the Senate is required to advise and consent, it leaves those determinations to the Senate itself. This is intentional. does the Constitution provide a definition of what consent is? maybe silence is consent "Qui tacet consentit", Obama nominates and when the Senate does nothing that is considered consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 does the Constitution provide a definition of what consent is? maybe silence is consent "Qui tacet consentit", Obama nominates and when the Senate does nothing that is considered consent. You're replying to TYTT with a question he answered in the post you're replying to? NO, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A DEFINITION. If you're a DC-Tomist, your argument is that the Senate has to do its duty under the Constitution but on whatever procedural terms it wants to and in fact can put a 350 year delay into the procedure if it desires, and can also choose to advise on nominees who can pass the Saltine test. Yes. You don't have to like it. That is how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 does the Constitution provide a definition of what consent is? maybe silence is consent "Qui tacet consentit", Obama nominates and when the Senate does nothing that is considered consent. Sure, unless the Senate says it doesn't. Because the Constitution does expressly place that charge in the hands of the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Reminder: After Estrada withdrew his nomination that was held up in the Senate for two years Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said the withdrawal was a "a victory for the Constitution.". Harry Reid -- In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees. Senator Schumer in mid-*2007* (not yet an election year): We Democrats should not confirm another Bush SCOTUS appointee ***** So history has already shown that the democrats believe that the "advise and consent" responsibility has included filibustering and withholding a vote. Democrats long ago established that ideological disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for blocking a Supreme Court appointee. "If anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts." "The other side did it" is not a reasoned argument. It's a rubber-glue argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) "The other side did it" is not a reasoned argument. It's a rubber-glue argument. No. it is a point against your continued insistence on this. Observer, on 09 Mar 2016 - 08:33 AM, said: The process is actually that simple and the GOP will hurt their credibility with their stance. Your continuing focus on the "responsibilities" of just one side and the parsing of every word of the Senate rules may be a "reasoned argument to you, but appears to be a "sour grapes" argument to the casual observer. . Edited March 10, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 You're replying to TYTT with a question he answered in the post you're replying to? NO, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A DEFINITION. Yes. You don't have to like it. That is how it works. Why don't we ask Justice Scalia if it's in the constitution? Or Justice Thomas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) No. it is a point against your continued insistence on this. Your continuing focus on the "responsibilities" of just one side and the parsing of every word of the Senate rules may be a "reasoned argument to you, but appears to be a "sour grapes" argument to the casual observer. . The "responsibilities" are in play right now at this moment (actually not until Obama nominates) and it's the GOP Senate in focus. If you're going to use "Bush bad" logic, it's gator's game. The constant wrangling over judicial nominees by both parties is abhorrent and has lead to understaffing of the federal judiciary for 20 years. Edited March 10, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) "The other side did it" is not a reasoned argument. It's a rubber-glue argument. I agree with you but it does make hypocrites of the Dems who attack Republicans for wanting to do the same thing. It really makes Reid and others look like the total !@#$ douchebags that they are. Edited March 10, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I agree with you but it does make hypocrites of the Dems who attack Republicans for wanting to do the same thing. It really makes Reid and others look like the total !@#$ douchebags that they are. No doubt. And which party will do the right thing first? Calling for leadership...anyone? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The "responsibilities" are in play right now at this moment (actually not until Obama nominates) and it's the GOP Senate in focus. If you're going to use "Bush bad" logic, it's gator's game. The constant wrangling over judicial nominees by both parties is abhorrent and has lead to understaffing of the federal judiciary for 20 years. I wouldn't call the SCOTUS understaffed unless you think Ruth Ginsberg is really dead, like weekend at Bernie's dead. No doubt. And which party will do the right thing first? Calling for leadership...anyone? Anyone? I believe the Republicans will hold hearings on the Obama nominee but confirmation doubtful. I don't see Obama nominating anyone near Scalia's conservative credentials and that's what the majority of senators elected by the people are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I wouldn't call the SCOTUS understaffed unless you think Ruth Ginsberg is really dead, like weekend at Bernie's dead. I believe the Republicans will hold hearings on the Obama nominee but confirmation doubtful. I don't see Obama nominating anyone near Scalia's conservative credentials and that's what the majority of senators elected by the people are looking for. I was not referring to the Supreme Court being understaffed but the wider federal judiciary. Obama will not nominate Scalia junior but nor will he nominate Ginsberg Jr. I suspect he'l put up a Liberal version of Roberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I was not referring to the Supreme Court being understaffed but the wider federal judiciary. Obama will not nominate Scalia junior but nor will he nominate Ginsberg Jr. I suspect he'l put up a Liberal version of Roberts. So you suspect he'll nominate a unicorn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 And which party will do the right thing first? Calling for leadership...anyone? Anyone? The "right thing" as defined by Observer. It doesn't even seem to occur to you that some Senators believe that holding off on a non-conservative replacement for Justice Scalia, or letting the American Public give their input with their vote in 30 weeks IS the right thing. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 So you suspect he'll nominate a unicorn... Sri Srinivasan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts