Please, US Constitution experts, enlighten me : If a Democrat wins the 2016 presidential election, could GOP senators keep refusing to appoint anyone Hillary or Bernie would nominate ? Does the Constition provides a solution to a situation in which a Democrat President would nominate someone who would match his agenda, his views and the GOP controlled senate would oppose any nominee that wouldn't match their agenda, their views, etc. ?
Justice Antonin Scalia has died
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
In what other job can you willfully refuse to do your job and not get fired? I don't give a shit what party you belong to, you are being payed to perform a job. Fucking do it. This is why people are unhappy with both parties. This is another reason why we need to have some "third party" candidates in the system and winning seats. Wake up people, it's not going to get any better until WE force the issue.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ThatRedWing again.
Well stated! :thumbsup: I'd rep you if the rep olice would let me. Anyone who applauds obstructionism for strictly partisan purposes is a fucking traitor as far as I am concerned. Being governed by a republic means that you're not always going to get your way....in fact, the majority of the time all factions should feel that the eventual outcome of the political process should require some sort of sacrifice or compromise. Right or left, we need to learn to embrace the art of give and take for the common good. If not, I fear your description of this gawd-awful gubment we currently are forced to accept will only proliferate. Putting partisanship above patriotism is an abomination and there's simply way too much of it going on at all levels of government and on both sides of the aisle.
Supafly
Retired Mod
I watched an episode of the Rachel Maddow Show. She stated that the possibility would be to promote a judge from a lower court to the Supreme Court without the procedure that the opposition are saying they will block - because a "lower court judge" IS already approved and thus is free to get promoted.
Elwood70
Torn & Frayed.
Supafly
Retired Mod
Covered.
He got mine, too.
Then you must consider Obama a traitor because he was on record as wanting to utilize the "60 vote option" to stop Sam Alito's confirmation back in 2006.
Google it, YouTube it, he was going around the Sunday talk shows as well spreading his garbage. Now, he is all about his constitutional authority. The Senate can examine any nominee put forward and choose to either bring them up for a vote or not bring them up for a vote. That is all they are required to do to meet their job requirement. A loan officer can examine a person's creditworthiness before bringing it before the loan committee and it not be a dereliction of duty. The nomination by a president does not carry any greater weight within the constitution than the Senate's ability to fight or deny it. You know, separate but equal branches of government and all that shit.
Why don't you just admit that you want to see a constructionist replaced with a left wing ideologue and save us the sanctimonious bullshit.
If you were consistent, you would have mentioned Schumer, Reid and Obama's attempts to deny a nomination back in 2006 which make this current situation pale in comparison. BTW, they tried this in early 2006 and won majorities in congress later that year, so much for partisan politics costing them an election.
You must spread some American Treasure Reputation around before giving it to Just BC again.
Supafly
Retired Mod
Of course, BC, you are going into anti "left-wing ideologist" mode. As if Obama was anything NEAR left wing, as it showed, as opposed to his "Change" "Yes We Can" rhetoric.
The actual offense is by McConnell etc going on record opposing ANYBODY, before a single nominee was named.
That is simply pushing the republican way of doing their work by doing ZERO, no, less than ero.
I give you that both sides get smeared, but one of the sides has been so deeply corrupted and is so openly anti-doing their job, that you can't be pro Republican and excpect to be takeen seriously. You Might as well be pro Deez Nuts.
The actual offense is by McConnell etc going on record opposing ANYBODY, before a single nominee was named.
That is simply pushing the republican way of doing their work by doing ZERO, no, less than ero.
I give you that both sides get smeared, but one of the sides has been so deeply corrupted and is so openly anti-doing their job, that you can't be pro Republican and excpect to be takeen seriously. You Might as well be pro Deez Nuts.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Because it isn't the case, that's why. If you re-read my post, I said there's plenty of obstructionism happening on both sides of the aisle so kindly refrain from making baseless accusations about my intent. I want government to work and if that means a compromise nominee is appointed, so fucking be it. What we don't need is more government inaction and gridlock. The system is designed for compromise but no one practices it.
Actually, if Washington were alive he'd be all "those carriages without horses moving about, those contraptions in people's hands they are fixed upon, and wtf is that in the sky? what is this devilry?"
cuz "wtf" was common parlance even then.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
I would like to see the reaction of people from the past if we were able to bring them into the future.
Young Turks...
Young Turks...
instead of "championing a cause" what about simply interpreting the law as it's written?
with so many 5-4 decisions along ideological lines, someone isn't doing that.
That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.
- Justice Scalia
It also says things like people being 3/5 a man, that we now have sense to ignore!
I'm no legal scholar, and I'm not even going to play one on here (we've got that covered on this board), but the 3/5 a man thing was actually the anti-slavery northern states trying to weaken the power of the south by limiting their representation in congress. The southern states wanted to count their slaves in their population totals to increase the number of their representatives. The north did not want to include the slaves at all and the 3/5ths thing was a compromise. It didn't mean that black slaves were 3/5 a human in worth.
And the 13th amendment abolished slavery. So there's a mechanism in place to change things that you don't like in the Constitution rather than just making it mean whatever you think it should mean.
I meant that as a compliment, not that someone was "playing" one, as I would be. Just for clarification purposes as that could be read both ways.
Similar threads
