Constitution, President and the Supreme Court

[Kenny]

What does the Constitution say after all the fuss that has been going on?

Article II Section 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Apparently this "wait until the election or not wait until the election" is under the purview of the Senate.

Not a vote on what is popular.

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

 

[columbus]

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

Not according to McConnell, or the top Republicans.

If an election is in the offing, the Senate vote should wait until the People have voted.
Unless the People voted for a Democrat, but the EC vote for a Republican, then the People's vote doesn't matter because we're not a democracy.

Keeping up with the Republicans is harder than keeping up with the Kardashians.
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

What does the Constitution say after all the fuss that has been going on?

Article II Section 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Apparently this "wait until the election or not wait until the election" is under the purview of the Senate.

Not a vote on what is popular.

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

If this is true. What happened in 2016?

Of course, the Democrats can, in the Senate stall and prevent the approval of the nominee through including filibuster.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

What is your view of the handling GOP handling of the 2016 Merrick Garland nomination?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What did Abraham Lincoln do, under his watch in the last year of a term, with regard to appointing a justice?

What did Mitch McConnnell, Lindsay Graham, and virtually every Republican argue SO PASSIONATELY for in 2016?

 

[sun rise]

It's not about the law, it's about power. Donald & Mitch and the rest are about being bullies and using raw power to get their way.

The retaliation will be fun and constitutional:

• DC and Puerto Rico get statehood
• 11 or more on SCOTUS - with, I hope, Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama on the Court along with Merrick Garland
  
• Medicare for all that want it
• Social Security funded
• Science honored
• Trump charged with crimes and all his dirty linen comes out
• Putin gets what he deserves
• Election reform so people can vote rather than have roadblocks.
• Abortion secured
• LGBTQ rights secured
• Police reform
• Shutting down terrorist operations by Trump supporters.

And I'm just getting started. Trump & Co have sown the wind. The whirlwind is starting to form. If Mitt Romney joins the two who have already said they're against a SCOTUS appointment, it's 50-50 and then it will get interesting.

We're right on the edge of a Democratic (fully legal) revolution. Nancy Pelosi has the biggest cojones in Washington. I'd bet on her any day to give better than she gets.

And even now, the airwaves are being flooded by campaign commercials showing the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters. I might just have to give more money to the Lincoln Project

 

[sun rise]

Think Democrats are not activated?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Apparently this "wait until the election or not wait until the election" is under the purview of the Senate.
Not a vote on what is popular.

Are you a "praying man"???
If the Senate decides that it's its "purview" to fail to confirm a Supreme Court Justice for 400+days during Obama's second term and its "purview" to confirm a Supreme Court Justice prior to the election of a new president, then you better pray that Democrats don't win a majority in the House and in the senate and the Presidency in November, because if they do, they might just increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to twelve or thirteen, and nominate and confirm six or seven new Justices to correct the unjustl balance that McConnell and the Senate's tinkering has created. Read the Constitution. The current limit is as temporary or lasts as long as the whim of Congress.

 

[Koldo]

What does the Constitution say after all the fuss that has been going on?

Article II Section 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Apparently this "wait until the election or not wait until the election" is under the purview of the Senate.

Not a vote on what is popular.

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

As it has been pointed before, this wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for what happened years ago...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We're right on the edge of a Democratic (fully legal) revolution. Nancy Pelosi has the biggest cojones in Washington. I'd bet on her any day to give better than she gets.

And even now, the airwaves are being flooded by campaign commercials showing the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters. I might just have to give more money to the Lincoln Project

Think Democrats are not activated?

Be that as it may, there is a very good chance that we'll lose.

 

[sun rise]

Be that as it may, there is a very good chance that we'll lose.

I'm really tired of pessimism. and defeatism. Now is the time to go all in and not assume defeat.

 

[Kenny]

Not according to McConnell, or the top Republicans.

If an election is in the offing, the Senate vote should wait until the People have voted.
Unless the People voted for a Democrat, but the EC vote for a Republican, then the People's vote doesn't matter because we're not a democracy.

Keeping up with the Republicans is harder than keeping up with the Kardashians.
Tom

Politicians can say what they want to say...

The Constitution validates what they say or shows that they are in error.

Apparently the Senate is within their rights as we continue as a country governed by laws.

 

[Kenny]

What is your view of the handling GOP handling of the 2016 Merrick Garland nomination?

Whether right or wrong... they were in their delegated authority to withhold the nomination. They didn't try to destroy Garland as many Senators tried in the last Supreme Court nomination.

 

[Kenny]

Are you a "praying man"???
If the Senate decides that it's its "purview" to fail to confirm a Supreme Court Justice for 400+days during Obama's second term and its "purview" to confirm a Supreme Court Justice prior to the election of a new president, then you better pray that Democrats don't win a majority in the House and in the senate and the Presidency in November, because if they do, they might just increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to twelve or thirteen, and nominate and confirm six or seven new Justices to correct the unjustl balance that McConnell and the Senate's tinkering has created. Read the Constitution. The current limit is as temporary or lasts as long as the whim of Congress.

I've already seen what the other side does when they have the capacity through majority. They change the rules to favor their position.

The question is, who is the hen and who is the egg.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What does the Constitution say after all the fuss that has been going on?

Currently he doesn't have to but may do so. Its constitutional either way, whatever he decides. The Senate will of course cooperate, either with a thumbs up or down; but the situation is not urgent.

I think if the Supreme Court did not have a quorum (whatever number that is I think 3 or 6) then the President would be required to nominate someone expeditiously. Any less than that the President would be compelled.

I suppose that (in the crazy situation) in which they were down to 1 or 2 judges and the president nominated but the senate would not approve his appointments then the court would be forced to function without a quorum. There are certain situations not provided for. Its assumed that political pressure will keep the seats filled. That innate assumption is like a tacit approval to nominate at any time there is a vacancy.

 

[Kenny]

As it has been pointed before, this wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for what happened years ago...

What happened years ago is the outgrowth of what already is or was--and the fruit thereof.

It was called "The nuclear option".

Nuclear option - Wikipedia

 

[Terry Sampson]

The question is, who is the hen and who is the egg.

There ain't no hen nor egg. There's just one teeter-totter and it takes two to play on it. If they play right, each gets to touch the ground. If they don't, the fat kid's down and the scrawny kid is stuck in the air hollerin'.

 

[sun rise]

I've already seen what the other side does when they have the capacity through majority. They change the rules to favor their position.

The question is, who is the hen and who is the egg.

Mitch did the same thing. He changed the rules to get a right wing Justice.

 

[sun rise]

@KenS

And when the Democrats win in November, abolish the filibuster, admit two new states and add Justices to SCOTUS, I won't be waiting for you to repeat what you just have been writing because the history is that Trump people want everything their way and whine like a jet engine when Democrats return the favor.

Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats are united that Trump and Trump party members have to go. And we're ponying up serious money to make that happen.

The Democrats' response to RBG's death should terrify Trump

The New York Times reported that from about 9 p.m. ET Friday -- about 90 minutes after RBG's death was announced -- ActBlue reported receiving $6.2 million in donations, the most ever in just one hour in the platform's 16-year history. That record was broken the following hour when $6.3 million was donated, more than $100,000 per minute.Saturday, after Trump announced he would be nominating a candidate for RBG's seat this week, ActBlue raised another $70.6 million dollars from 1.2 million contributors. All told in the 28 hours after RBG's death, ActBlue reported receiving $100 million in donations for Democrats.

 

[exchemist]

What does the Constitution say after all the fuss that has been going on?

Article II Section 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Apparently this "wait until the election or not wait until the election" is under the purview of the Senate.

Not a vote on what is popular.

It is the right of the sitting president to nominate. It is the right of the Senate to give a thumbs up or down on it.

For some reason, the Republican party did not see it that way last time this happened, when the nominating president was a Democrat.

Hence the "fuss". Odd that you seem unaware of that.

But I'm actually not sure it matters that much, so long as the judge appointed is a competent and experienced judge. None of these judges can be controlled by a political party once they are in office and most of them look to how their judgements will be regarded by their peers in the law, rather than by politicians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whether right or wrong...

What a cowardly evasion!