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.
Show me anywhere that the constant GOP mewling and whining over Obama's supposedly "unconstitutional actions" over the past seven years has any basis in reality.
In this case, ubs started all this "unconstitutional" bickering an hour after Scalia's death was reported.
Now, the constitution tasks them to offer "advice and consent" on the president's supreme court appointment. It doesn't say the senate can disregard and ignore an appointee.
Just look at your OWN posts. All whining and mewing because you can dish it out and CAN'T TAKE IT.
"the constitution tasks them to offer "advice and consent" Full Definition of advice
1 : recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct : counsel<he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties — United States Constitution>
2 : information or notice given —usually used in plural
3 : an official notice concerning a business transaction
I didn't indicate otherwise but the there is no precedent as you alluded to, Biden, Obama did not refuse to hear a nominee. Some people have indicated there is a precedent for this, there is none.
" but the there is no precedent as you alluded to, Biden, Obama did not refuse to hear a nominee."
how MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE BE TOLD?
Originally Posted by Goodnight Your Blackmun example has nothing to do with the point, why is it so hard for you to understand that the question was regarding the senate refusing to consider ANY NOMINEE.
You indicated there was precedent for not considering any nominee, I have asked several times now so I assume you don't have a reference in your considerable research. Now you are 0 for 2, do you have anything at all because you stated there was precedent for the senates current inaction.
ive answerd the question multiple times
"Ferd,
John Quincy Adams
John Tyler both had SCOTUS nominees who were not voted on.
at a minimum 450 judicial nominess have not received votes and did not withdraw. That is the most likely disposition of a presidential nominee other than confirmation.
Further I have quoted Article and Paragraph of the constitution that shows 2 things
1. The Senate sets its own rules, and that includes what Advice and Consent looks like.
2. The Senate does not have to hold a vote, to provide Advice and Consent."
"Biden, Obama did not refuse to hear a nominee."
I am glad to see you admit that DEMS LIE.
Shumer and Biden BOTH vowed to NOT CONSIDER a nominee.
Te fact that a the situation did NOT come up is immaterial.
IF one had come up they said how they would NOT act.
So either they lied or would have carried out what they said they would NOT do.
Originally Posted by Goodnight Your Blackmun example has nothing to do with the point, why is it so hard for you to understand that the question was regarding the senate refusing to consider ANY NOMINEE.
You indicated there was precedent for not considering any nominee, I have asked several times now so I assume you don't have a reference in your considerable research. Now you are 0 for 2, do you have anything at all because you stated there was precedent for the senates current inaction.
ive answerd the question multiple times
"Ferd,
John Quincy Adams
John Tyler both had SCOTUS nominees who were not voted on.
at a minimum 450 judicial nominess have not received votes and did not withdraw. That is the most likely disposition of a presidential nominee other than confirmation.
Further I have quoted Article and Paragraph of the constitution that shows 2 things
1. The Senate sets its own rules, and that includes what Advice and Consent looks like.
2. The Senate does not have to hold a vote, to provide Advice and Consent.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-28-2016 at 08:48 AM..
For those of you rambling about how the Senate is to 'advise' the President about whom he may nominate, or even if he may nominate, here is an interesting article from the Heritage Foundation from 2005:
I found this paragraph going to the heart of the matter:
"The practice of the first President and Senate supported the construction of the Appointments Clause that reserves the act of nomination exclusively to the President. In requesting confirmation of his first nominee, President Washington sent the Senate this message: "I nominate William Short, Esquire, and request your advice on the propriety of appointing him." The Senate then notified the President of Short's confirmation, which showed that they too regarded "advice" as a postnomination rather than a prenomination function: "Resolved, that the President of the United States be informed, that the Senate advise and consent to his appointment of William Short Esquire. . . ."
The Senate has continued to use this formulation to the present day. Washington wrote in his diary that Thomas Jefferson and John Jay agreed with him that the Senate's powers "extend no farther than to an approbation or disapprobation of the person nominated by the President, all the rest being Executive and vested in the President by the Constitution." Washington's construction of the Appointments Clause has been embraced by his successors."
"Nobody who has worked hard to be a respected jurist should have to ruin a life and a career over a political food fight."
"Who does that leave? Someone who will mobilize and energize Democrats and inspire centrists and moderates. Someone accustomed to the bright lights of cable news and someone who doesn’t mind being flattened down to an election-year cartoon."
"It will spare a really great and tender judge the humiliation of being a political football and perhaps serve to get out the vote in November. This is less a trick than a pivot, a nonconstitutional response to a nonconstitutional impasse."
We all know SCOTUS appointments are all about politics.
Let's quit pretending it's a rarified debate over the Constitution and get on with it.
Fauxcahontas? No. Absolutely not! She's unethical to the core.
Warren was touted as Harvard's first "faculty woman of color." And who bemoaned the fate of the middle class while earning $350,000 from Harvard for teaching one class. Sure, Dems should go with that.
For those of you rambling about how the Senate is to 'advise' the President about whom he may nominate, or even if he may nominate, here is an interesting article from the Heritage Foundation from 2005:
I found this paragraph going to the heart of the matter:
The Senate has continued to use this formulation to the present day. Washington wrote in his diary that Thomas Jefferson and John Jay agreed with him that the Senate's powers "extend no farther than to an approbation or disapprobation of the person nominated by the President, all the rest being Executive and vested in the President by the Constitution." Washington's construction of the Appointments Clause has been embraced by his successors."
Anyone rambling that the Senate's role is to advise the prez on who to nominate is clearly wrong, constitutionally. The prez can nominate anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants. otoh, it has become common for a prez to at least consult with key Senators or Senate leadership.
I have no idea why you think that's the heart of the matter.
Reagan was a good leader but there was also many contentious debates with the democrats, Tip O'Neill and others were always at odds but they both compromised.
Reagan and Obama were both very popular when elected but you would never hear a senate leader state that they would do everything to obstruct Reagans programs and make him a one term president, that is why we can't get anything done.
I would never attribute the senate votes on SCJ's under Reagan to leadership ability, that is what common sense looks like which is in short supply today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
It kind of makes me miss that era of politics in DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
LOL. Bet at the time you would never have imagined that.
This is dysfunctional. Know how you destroy a country? Your idiots in charge acting like children.
Common sense in short supply today? Yup. Dysfunctional? Yup, most reasonable people will agree.
Form follows dysfunction.
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.
