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.
I agree in that a sitting president should be able to nominate a candidate any time in his term and get consideration by the senate, it was absurd to believe a president only has 3 years to select a justice. But the republicans now want it both ways changing their minds as it suits their needs. It would be fair to let the next president select a justice even though it is rightfully Trumps, on balance this would makeup for the republicans blocking Obama's pick in 2016.
We need to get back to fairness and normalcy, this hyper partisanship isn't good for the country.
Kind of like the way Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage after the election?
That's politics.
And don't even sit there crying about "fairness" after the way Democrats have acted the last four years and as if Schumer and the Dems wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing if the situation were reversed.
The president and the senate also have the legal authority to delay filling RBG's seat until after Inauguration Day. There is no requirement it has to be done immediately. And no justice has ever been confirmed while voting is taking place. Several states are voting now.
Jamming this new justice down our throats while an election is underway is not a matter of law, it is a matter of choice.
Let the voters decide.
Voters don't pick SC Justices
The President does and the Senate confirms.
Quote:
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Nope....... not a damn thing in there about voting or elections.
There is absolutely nowhere she named a successor, and you know it. Quit trying to twist her words to support your invalid argument. That was a statement she dictated to her granddaughter on her death bed.
If honoring the dying wishes of a SCOTUS justice regarding her replacement matters, you're halfway there. If the wishes of a dying or retiring justice becomes the all-important issue when replacing them, you're pretty much telling all current justices that they can name their successor.
Also consider how this looks if Trump wins and the GOP retains the Senate -- both very likely outcomes at this point. In order to honor the dying wishes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we would have to leave the SCOTUS seat vacant until January 2025.
Not only is creating such a tradition out of thin air is completely nonsensical, it creates all kinds of unintended problems. And the biggest problem: We heard it from a guy who talked to a girl who says that Ginsberg said a thing. We even know she said anything like that.
I know that the Left practically worships RBG. To them, respecting the dying wishes (if it's even real) of this quasi-deity comes before any other consideration. For my part, I disagreed with about 2/3 of RGB's positions over the years, but I admire her toughness and tenacity. Reminds me of own grandmother. My cousin (20-something at the time) challenged my 88 year old grandmother to an arm wrestling match. My cousin lost instantly. They switched hands to "prove it." My cousin lost again almost instantly. Like my grandmother, RBG was one tough and feisty chick and I respect that. But I do not think a hearsay version of her dying wishes has any relevance to how our government functions.
If more people exercised this common sense, we wouldn't be in this predicament.
The thing is, Republicans could still come out on top with this if they win in November. They'd get 6-3 fair and square in that they changed the rules and stuck to it.
However, if they want to return to the old rules - then do so. But one for me, one for you. Then we can go back and agree and that Presidents can nominate justices at any time in their term. This nonsense of holding a SC justice seat vacant was conjured up by McConnell.
Pretty simple... Obama nominated a Justice that couldn't get enough Senate votes.
Kind of like the way Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage after the election?
That's politics.
And don't even sit there crying about "fairness" after the way Democrats have acted the last four years and as if Schumer and the Dems wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing if the situation were reversed.
Whataboutism, anything to offer on the republicans change of mind.
There is no rule that says a president can’t appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year. There should not be such a rule. Presidents are elected for four years, and they have the power to name new judges for the duration of their terms. That is the rule, and it is the rule that Mitch McConnell broke more than four years ago, in the course of making up his new fake rules.
Mitch McConnell didn't break any rule four years ago. "He shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, "
So the president nominated but the senate did not consent and is not required to give consent.
The problem was that it was impossible for anyone Obama nominated to have the consent of the Senate.
and Obama advocated for that...his words... "elections have consequences"
if the POTUS (either party) doesn't have a supporting Senate... then it will get voted down, or not even get voted on
Obama did his job...he NAMED a person for the vacancy... Garland
the Senate did their job...either consider the candidate and vote (yea or nay).... or not even bother to vote (table the vote)...like the hundreds that Harry Reid did
Mitch McConnell didn't break any rule four years ago. "He shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, "
So the president nominated but the senate did not consent and is not required to give consent.
No one said he did anything illegal but claiming he didn't break any laws is a pretty low standard. But he did contradict himself in a major way.
That makes no sense. Obama nominated a Justice in 2016. Trump will nominate a Justice in 2020. Both will have fulfilled their Constitutional duty by doing so.
Can you imagine getting impeach for performing your constitutional duty?
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.
