I'm not sure Republicans get this, but the people already had a say in the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
And when they put the Republicans in the Senate majority.
According to New York Times in 1987, it also happened during mid-term elections:
The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.
The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.
True. But nowhere in the Constitution does it instruct Congress to consider no appointments at all.
Honest question, do you ever get tired of getting repeatedly owned on HROT on a daily basis?
Every right to resist changing the court's direction, not to block any nominee no matter what. Some of the favorites appear to be well liked and unanimously approved in the past. If Obama nominates a left wing nut, I fully accept rejection, but rejecting a well respected centrist candidate because your hope is to get a right winger on later is harder to defend. Not that anyone cares or will change their mind on the topic.
Great. Another Bork reference. Even the Republicans had trouble accepting Bork. 6 of them voted against him. And it still ignores the larger point that at least the Dems knew who they were resisting. GOP won't even go this far. They are against anybody so long as Obama nominates him.
If Obama actually nominates someone who will not change the court's direction, I think they'll consent to her or his being seated on the Court. However, I will be extremely surprised if he does - it's contrary to his nature. Fortunately, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to make that decision.
That sounds like a willingness to consider a candidate. If so, there is no disagreement.
Scalia hasn't been dead a week yet. I'd wait until the Senate actually refuses to give consideration to a nominee before getting too outraged. Right now it's just rhetoric that has been spewed by both parties and by Senator Obama in the past. It's not likely the Republicans will go full Harry Reid on stopping all progress in the Senate for a year.
Bork was defeated by the largest margin in history. Even the Senate Judicial Committee voted 9-5 to recommend he not be confirmed. Excusing the Republican misbehavior of not even allowing a vote with a case like this is quite the weak sauce.
SO I guess you missed Harry Reid standing on the Senate floor When GWB was POTUS saying they weren't going to act on his nominees.
Interesting. So you're saying that the Republicans can say whatever crazy things they want but the Dems should simply not worry about it until it comes true?
Hmmm. Maybe.
I'm saying it's not worth worrying too much about the crazy things the Republicans say when 1) the same Democrats who are bitching about the crazy things the Republicans say themselves said the same sorts of crazy things when the roles were reversed; 2) its constitutionally in the Republicans' hands and worrying won't change that; and 3) I think that the Republicans won't carry through on the crazy things and will consider a SC nominee (but probably won't confirm one).
True. But people that believe in following the constitution see it as a form of checks and balances. Then again. Since the president ignores the constitution can't we all?
Well the GOP is already starting to crack on this whole promise. So we do agree that it might turn out to just be an emotional reaction to the idea of losing the Supreme Court.
When entering a negotiation, it is common to "ask for the moon" in your opening demand. That way, you don't open asking for less than your opponent was willing to give.
"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.”
Hmm, so it's the Senate's duty to advise and consent. Not seeing anything about it being their job to fold their arms and do nothing.
I've addressed this in other threads, but this most likely isn't a negotiation by the right, but rather than an emotional knee-jerk response to the idea that they might lose the Court. They wouldn't have had time to craft an official response to Scalia's death, let alone be able to control everyone in the party to go along with their plans.
The Senate has "advised" Obama that they'd prefer the next president do the nominating so that the people can decide what sort of justice they'd like the next president to nominate.
Want another Scalia? Elect Cruz.
Want another Ginsberg? Elect Hillary.
Want Hugo Chavez? Elect Sanders.
Last edited:
McConnell can block anything from going anywhere in the Senate all by himself. Harry Reid proved that.
Sorry. The Constitution clearly says that it's the President's job to nominate and get the Senate's advice on who to appoint. What it doesn't say is that it's the Senate's job to not consider any of the President's nominees at all.
What part of "consent" do you not understand?
What part about the President being able to nominate someone first don't you understand?
The constitution doesn't say anything about the president getting to nominate "first" before the senate can offer advice. Why couldn't the senate give Obama a list of candidates they believe would be good choices? There's nothing that prevents that.
Considering the fact that the Constitution lists the President first in this action and considering that the Constitution is also quite clear that it is the President's job to nominate judges, and not the Senate, it's safe to assume that it's up to the President to make the first move.
They obviously don't agree. And don't consent. Not hard to understand. They (unlike the president) are still following the constitution.
Obama has every right, and duty, to nominate, and the Senate has every right, and duty, to consent, or not. End of debate.
The Supreme Court carries neither the power of the sword or the purse and is by far the weakest body of government. They are only there to pass judgement not to make laws.
Who said they weren't going to consider any?
There just not going to consider any until 2017.
That would make no sense. Obama should never follow this advice to nominate someone as conservative as Scalia. He should nominate a solid liberal and then rub the Rs faces in it forever. This is war, he should fight. If Obama surrenders, I'll piss on him myself.
The word "shall" means must. The President and congress have no choice but to act.
