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.
Hopefully people remember this come January 2017 if the GOP controls the Presidency and Senate Democrats decide to stall until 2021.
If the GOP wins the Presidency and keeps the Senate this year, they'll do a complete overhaul of filibuster rules (Dems already opened the door for such a move) and end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and possibly more.
The Senate is not required to vote on any particular nominee to the federal judiciary. The obligation to give advice and consent to nominations includes the option of advising not to put forward a nominee and to not give consent by choosing not to consider. The way you get around that is via the political process (i.e. voting for senators with different views on the matter and who are for an up or down vote).
True, they cannot shut down Supreme Court for 11 months just because they think a presidents 2nd term is only 3 years, not 4. Someone should educate them on the Constitution.
But maybe this is a good thing for us liberals. One less crusty conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
True, they cannot shut down Supreme Court for 11 months just because they think a presidents 2nd term is only 3 years, not 4. Someone should educate them on the Constitution.
The Supreme Court won't shut down with 8 instead of 9 members.
Except that the Constitution doesn't require that the Senate vote on any particular nominee. Rather, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to give advice and consent to the president's nominee. But to give advice and consent includes the option of advising the president not to nominate someone and failing to give consent to any eventual nominee. Nothing prevents the president from putting forward a nominee (if he's smart and actually wants his choice confirmed, he'll put forward a centrist nominee, and one from the Senate, such as Susan Collins, R-Maine . . . it doesn't matter that she's not an attorney/judge). But, at the same time, nothing prevents the Senate from saying "no" or refusing to even consider a nominee until the president's terms is up.
So by your reading of the Constitution, a Senate that is held by the opposition party to the president could, in theory, simply refuse to consider any nominee at all during that president's term and wait instead until they get someone from their own party back in the White House?
You're missing the point. The Democrats voted, they fulfilled their constitutional responsibility and they publicly voted according to their beliefs and consciences. They quickly went on to unanimously approve Reagan's next pick, Anthony Kennedy, even though Reagan was a very lame duck.
The Republicans should follow their example but they're too cowardly.
They aren't going to reject candidates because they won't get the chance. McConnell is not going to let it come to the floor of the Senate. He has decided the next president will pick the next justice.
Puts new meaning in the expression, lame duck president.
Yep, So Liberals, look on the bright side, there's a miniscule chance that Hillary will win and then you may get your pick. Otherwise, you have a snowballs chance in hell.
What you forget is that the electorate elected Obama twice... You speak as though he was appointed to the presidency without the consultation of the American people. That electorate did not show up in 2010 and 2014. If republicans don't allow Obama to fill this vacancy, the 2008 and 2012 electorate shows up and GOP loses in a landslide.
Many people on both sides of the aisle still haven't learned what I learned back in 1968 when I 19 years old. Just because some candidate is their favorite, or some position is their favorite doesn't mean that their preference will prevail. It's a juvenile mindset that is very much like sports fan mistaking that their team will win...just because it's their team. There's a lot of that thinking here on C-D.
If the GOP wins the Presidency and keeps the Senate this year, they'll do a complete overhaul of filibuster rules (Dems already opened the door for such a move) and end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and possibly more.
At their own peril, but they'll need some compromise to do that, which again, will be unlikely.
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.
