Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same democrats that are crying foul today are the same ones that have done the exact same thing in years past. period. including the president.
The fact is the senate has a job. That job is constitutionally directed. That direction is to advise and consent. By telling a lame duck president he isn't going to appoint any further members of SCOTUS, they have in fact executed their Constitutional Responsibility.
you can whine and complain all you want. both parties have done that time and time again. and will in the future do more of it. That is what the founders intended. A&C is a check on the power of the presidency.
The American people spoke a little over a year ago when they tuned the democrats out in the senate. The American people asked for a got a check on Barak Obama's power.
This is that check being executed. period end of discussion.
It isn't rank hypocrisy. First of all, Democrats have not done the exact same thing in years past. PERIOD.
Secondly, SCOTUS has a job. And the Senate should recognize that. Their obstruction of that, for no other reason than pure partisanship, is wrong. They aren't entitled to tell the President that he can't make appointments that he is CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to do. They are entitled to review such proposed appointments, to qualify them, and to vote to approve such appointments or not. THAT is their Constitutional Responsibility.
When the Senate Majority leader tells the President of the United States that his term is up more than 11 months before the term is actually up, that Senate Majority leader isn't acting on the will of the people. The will of the people ELECTED this President, and his term isn't up until 2017. That Senate Majority leader is thumbing his nose at the will of the people. This isn't check being executed. This is rank partisanship, and it stinks to high heaven.
Seems to me "advice and consent" means that the Senate gives the president a list of potential nominees, the President chooses one, and the Senate then gives their consent (or not) to that choice.
When will obama ask for that list (advice)?
well we have history that directs...
from the beginning, presidents have nominated, and the senate has done one of several things.
sometimes they ignore the nomination
sometimes they explode and yell and scream
sometimes they lie their butts off and demean and slander the nomination
sometimes they talk themselves blue in the face and do nothing
sometimes they vote and reject
sometimes they vote and accept
and sometimes they stand, applaud the president for his wisdom and have a bonafide unanimous vote in support of the president.
all of that is advice and consent.
sometimes it is nice and pretty and sometimes its messy.. but in all cases it is the American Democratic Process.
from the beginning, presidents have nominated, and the senate has done one of several things.
sometimes they ignore the nomination
sometimes they explode and yell and scream
sometimes they lie their butts off and demean and slander the nomination
sometimes they talk themselves blue in the face and do nothing
sometimes they vote and reject
sometimes they vote and accept
and sometimes they stand, applaud the president for his wisdom and have a bonafide unanimous vote in support of the president.
all of that is advice and consent.
sometimes it is nice and pretty and sometimes its messy.. but in all cases it is the American Democratic Process.
No, ignoring is not a part of the democratic process, and they do not "sometimes ignore" Supreme Court nominations.
#1: Under the rules passed by a Senate Democrat super majority in the 60s, Obama may not offer an election year nomination.
#2: Democrats under the last Repeblican President (Bush) blocked all Reublican Judicial nominees for 4 whole years.
Answer would be that we know Obama will break the law. So just do a long show nomination process,ask for more answers to written questions and then vote no until 2017.
It isn't rank hypocrisy. First of all, Democrats have not done the exact same thing in years past. PERIOD.
Secondly, SCOTUS has a job. And the Senate should recognize that. Their obstruction of that, for no other reason than pure partisanship, is wrong. They aren't entitled to tell the President that he can't make appointments that he is CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to do. They are entitled to review such proposed appointments, to qualify them, and to vote to approve such appointments or not. THAT is their Constitutional Responsibility.
When the Senate Majority leader tells the President of the United States that his term is up more than 11 months before the term is actually up, that Senate Majority leader isn't acting on the will of the people. The will of the people ELECTED this President, and his term isn't up until 2017. That Senate Majority leader is thumbing his nose at the will of the people. This isn't check being executed. This is rank partisanship, and it stinks to high heaven.
1. you are wrong. It is utter hypocrisy for you to say this. period and it isn't even close.
2. Democrats have done the same thing. both sides have done the same thing for 200+years.
3. SCOTUSs job does not require 9 sitting members to continue. They are not blocked.
4. The President is not constitutionally ENTITLED to appoint any person other than those that the CONGRESS has by writ of law assigned to him.
5. He is constitutionally entitled to NOMINATE candidates to certain high positions, SCOTUS being one of them.
6. The SENATE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to "advice and consent" the president.
7. A&C is not some stamp. it is a CHECK on the power of the executive. Period.
8. (once again with feeling) CONSTITUTIONALLY THE SENATE GETS TO SET THE RULES ON WHAT THAT A7C LOOKS LIKE.
9. The Senate Majority leader is in fact executing the will of the people because the people elected more republicans than democrats and turned the democrats out. THIS IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
10. You are just pitching a fit because you aren't getting what you want.
#1: Under the rules passed by a Senate Democrat super majority in the 60s, Obama may not offer an election year nomination.
#2: Democrats under the last Repeblican President (Bush) blocked all Reublican Judicial nominees for 4 whole years.
Answer would be that we know Obama will break the law. So just do a long show nomination process,ask for more answers to written questions and then vote no until 2017.
0
That was a resolution back in the 60's not a law, never been used.
#1: Under the rules passed by a Senate Democrat super majority in the 60s, Obama may not offer an election year nomination.
#2: Democrats under the last Repeblican President (Bush) blocked all Reublican Judicial nominees for 4 whole years.
Answer would be that we know Obama will break the law. So just do a long show nomination process,ask for more answers to written questions and then vote no until 2017.
#1. A non-binding resolution. Not a rule.
#2. Completely and utterly untrue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
