Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 Yes it would. The Senate can sit on a nomination, and refuse to vote. If they do, the nomination is returned to the President at the end of the Congressional session or beginning of an adjournment for more than a month. So theoretically, Garland's nomination could be returned to the President on July 16th (the start of the Senate's next long recess) and the matter would be closed (though Obama would be free to resubmit.) As a practical matter, the usual practice is for enough senators to stay in town to convene the Senate occasionally and keep it nominally in session, in which case the nomination expires with the end of Obama's term. Really...get yourself a !@#$ing education before you start spewing ridiculous ****. They could just wait 8 years more and never fill the seat. Heck, if 2/3 of Americans think they should vote now, and they don't BEFORE an election, why in the world would they after? And go for a walk or something, you are cranky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 They could just wait 8 years more and never fill the seat. Heck, if 2/3 of Americans think they should vote now, and they don't BEFORE an election, why in the world would they after? And go for a walk or something, you are cranky Yes, they could. And it doesn't matter what 2/3 of Americans think - it's the law. Hell, for most of our history "advise and consent" didn’t involve a floor vote - that's a relatively recent tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 Yes, they could. And it doesn't matter what 2/3 of Americans think - it's the law. Hell, for most of our history "advise and consent" didn’t involve a floor vote - that's a relatively recent tradition. But the GOP is saying it does matter what people say. That's the joke here. They claim to be doing this for the people but the people don't want them to. So I can see the Senate with its big state (unfair) advantage to small populations never allowing a vote. And with the GOP shrinking as a voting minority they may never elect another President in the form they currently are in. Re-drawing congressional districts after next census will be so big as the current GOP House represents that minority party and a minority of voters. Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 But the GOP is saying it does matter what people say. That's the joke here. They claim to be doing this for the people but the people don't want them to. So I can see the Senate with its big state (unfair) advantage to small populations never allowing a vote. And with the GOP shrinking as a voting minority they may never elect another President in the form they currently are in. Re-drawing congressional districts after next census will be so big as the current GOP House represents that minority party and a minority of voters. Interesting times. Everyone claims to be doing things for the people. It's always untrue. They do **** for their party. Don't like it? Then stop being part of the problem, you !@#$ing hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Everyone claims to be doing things for the people. It's always untrue. They do **** for their party. Don't like it? Then stop being part of the problem, you !@#$ing hypocrite. This is true. Low information voters such as Gator do not grasp this. Here is what is likely to happen. If a Republican wins in November, then the GOP Senate strategy is fulfilled. If Hillary or Bernie wins, then the voters have shown their preference towards who fills the Court seat. NOW the Republicans will then decide if they will try and bring Garland up for a vote......because its best for the U.S. ? No...........it would be the best option left for the PARTY, because Bernie/Hillary would want someone even farther left. The funny part is................its rather predictable that then the DEMOCRATS would block Garland's nomination in hopes to get a more liberal candidate. because its the best thing for them. All this "why aren't they doing their job" B.S. is just another squirrel . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 This is true. Low information voters such as Gator do not grasp this. Here is what is likely to happen. If a Republican wins in November, then the GOP Senate strategy is fulfilled. If Hillary or Bernie wins, then the voters have shown their preference towards who fills the Court seat. NOW the Republicans will then decide if they will try and bring Garland up for a vote......because its best for the U.S. ? No...........it would be the best option left for the PARTY, because Bernie/Hillary would want someone even farther left. The funny part is................its rather predictable that then the DEMOCRATS would block Garland's nomination in hopes to get a more liberal candidate. because its the best thing for them. All this "why aren't they doing their job" B.S. is just another squirrel . No. Because the Dems should shut down the Senate before ever considering to move at all on a GOP nomination. There is no way they can allow a Republican to get on the court. We would need to wait for the voters to decide in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 This is true. Low information voters such as Gator do not grasp this. Here is what is likely to happen. If a Republican wins in November, then the GOP Senate strategy is fulfilled. If Hillary or Bernie wins, then the voters have shown their preference towards who fills the Court seat. NOW the Republicans will then decide if they will try and bring Garland up for a vote......because its best for the U.S. ? No...........it would be the best option left for the PARTY, because Bernie/Hillary would want someone even farther left. The funny part is................its rather predictable that then the DEMOCRATS would block Garland's nomination in hopes to get a more liberal candidate. because its the best thing for them. All this "why aren't they doing their job" B.S. is just another squirrel . Except Garland's nomination would be voided well before January 2017. Even if he's renominated after the summer break, the nomination's returned for the winter break. No. Because the Dems should shut down the Senate before ever considering to move at all on a GOP nomination. There is no way they can allow a Republican to get on the court. We would need to wait for the voters to decide in 4 years. Because...you're making yet another completely retarded "But you started it!" argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 Because...you're making yet another completely retarded "But you started it!" argument? No, I'm saying what Dems should do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 No, I'm saying what Dems should do Actually, Democrats should do what Republicans should do, and put the governance of the country ahead of the promotion of the party. But you'll never understand that, because you're beyond being part of the problem. You are the archetype of "part of the problem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) If a Republican wins in November, then the GOP Senate strategy is fulfilled. If Hillary or Bernie wins, then the voters have shown their preference towards who fills the Court seat. . This Senate is proving that no Senate ever has to act to confirm a nominee. All they have to do is put the process on permanent procedural hold until they get a president they agree with because to the Rep Senate, the Constitution doesn't require them to advise and consent unless they agree with the person making the nomination. The Reps are playing chicken with the constitution and if the war powers clause and many others have proven anything, the executive wins in games of chicken. Nothing better could happen to these Senate idiots than Hillary winning and nominating the most liberal but qualified candidate possible (maybe a minority attorney who has been living in Washington for the last 8 years?) and then getting a Senate to confirm him/her. Edited April 14, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) This Senate is proving that no Senate ever has to act to confirm a nominee. All they have to do is put the process on permanent procedural hold until they get a president they agree with because to the Rep Senate, the Constitution doesn't require them to advise and consent unless they agree with the person making the nomination. The Reps are playing chicken with the constitution and if the war powers clause and many others have proven anything, the executive wins in games of chicken. Nothing better could happen to these Senate idiots than Hillary winning and nominating the most liberal but qualified candidate possible (maybe a minority attorney who has been living in Washington for the last 8 years?) and then getting a Senate to confirm him/her. Ignorance of history is a terrible thing. Congressional Record - Senate June 25,1992 - Joe Biden: ...it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearing on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. This is affectionately called the "Biden Rule". More history on election year nominations. Edited April 14, 2016 by Greg F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 This Senate is proving that no Senate ever has to act to confirm a nominee. All they have to do is put the process on permanent procedural hold until they get a president they agree with because to the Rep Senate, the Constitution doesn't require them to advise and consent unless they agree with the person making the nomination. That's actually entirely accurate. In the 113th Congress (2013-2014) there were 2237 nominations made to the Senate. About a fifth of them were returned to the President at the end of the session with no vote. Some of them (can't tell how many, the Congressional web site won't allow an easy query) were returned after almost a year of absolutely no action by the Senate. So yes, no Senate has ever had to act to confirm a nominee. The Senate can - and has, and does - sit on a nomination with no action until it's required to be returned to the President. It is analogous to a "pocket veto" - it's the Senate rejecting a nomination by inaction, which does constitute "advise and consent." And I know someone's response to this will be "But we're talking about a Supreme Court nominee, not a nominee for the Assistant Secretary of State (Energy Resources)!" Well, in fact neither Senate rules nor the Constitution makes any sort of distinction or qualification as to the importance of a nomination. By law and rule, all nominations are treated the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Ignorance of history is a terrible thing. This is affectionately called the "Biden Rule". More history on election year nominations. I've commented previously in this thread about the Senate's embarrassing behavior on federal judicial nominations. This time the stakes are higher with the seat belonging to the Supreme Court, which has a limited number of seats to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2016 Author Share Posted April 14, 2016 This Senate is proving that no Senate ever has to act to confirm a nominee. All they have to do is put the process on permanent procedural hold until they get a president they agree with because to the Rep Senate, the Constitution doesn't require them to advise and consent unless they agree with the person making the nomination. The Reps are playing chicken with the constitution and if the war powers clause and many others have proven anything, the executive wins in games of chicken. Nothing better could happen to these Senate idiots than Hillary winning and nominating the most liberal but qualified candidate possible (maybe a minority attorney who has been living in Washington for the last 8 years?) and then getting a Senate to confirm him/her. i have zero confidence the Senate will move at all if Hillary wins. They will probably say it's an insult to Obama that Hillary didn't renominates his chose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 i have zero confidence the Senate will move at all if Hillary wins. They will probably say it's an insult to Obama that Hillary didn't renominates his chose. If you don't get banned for being an asshat, douchebag or troll you should get banned for your special butchery of the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2016 Author Share Posted April 14, 2016 If you don't get banned for being an asshat, douchebag or troll you should get banned for your special butchery of the English language. Anything! Right? You are trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Anything! Right? You are trash Hey, you are the one who screws up every post that you don't plagiarize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Hey, you are the one who screws up every post that you don't plagiarize. And even the ones he does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/republicans-confirm-merrick-garland-asap./ Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer. Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30. Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it. Yup, pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Yup, pretty much Yup, this is pretty much the case: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts