I'm not sure Republicans get this, but the people already had a say in the Supreme Court

[73chief]

True. But nowhere in the Constitution does it instruct Congress to consider no appointments at all.

Looks like we found something else that Huey doesn't understand. You clearly don't understand what the legal concept behind the term "advice and consent" means. You need to go back and read Article II, Section 2 [2]:

"He(the President) 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 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 State, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which will be established by law."​

The intention of the "advice and consent" clause was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to ensure that both the executive and legislative branches had equal 50/50 say in who will be placed on the Supreme Court. Only in the modern era has this been mis-understood to assume that the Senate should exercise deference to the President's selection by simply rubber stamping, and should only deny those nominees if there are questions raised on grounds of the Ineligibility Clause. The Constitution sets no qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, not even the requirement of having a law degree.

No action on nominees is a means for exercising the Senate's right to "advice and consent". There have been 29 formal nominees to the Supreme Court that were not confirmed. Only 13 of those were denied confirmation by full Senate Vote. The majority of those withdrew when it was evident they would not be confirmed. So there is absolutely zero basis in the Constitution or in subsequent legislation that requires the Senate to take any formal action on a nomination. They can simply exercise their "advice and consent" by stating that the nomination is or will not be viable. Both parties in control of the Senate have exercised this.

The Constitution also gives Congress full authority to determine how many justices serve on the Supreme Court and how many other federal judges in other lower courts can be created. The First Judiciary Act of 1789 established the number of Supreme Court Justices at 6. In later years the numbers where changed to as low as 5 and as high as 10. The Judiciary Act of 1869 established the current court size at 9 members and requires on a quorum of 6 to conduct business. So the court will be fully able to conduct business without a 9th member.

 

[Lone Clone]

The word "shall" means must. The President and congress have no choice but to act.

Actually, according to the Florida State Supreme Court, the word "shall" means "must not." But that was kinda a special case.

 

[Lone Clone]

Looks like we found something else that Huey doesn't understand. You clearly don't understand what the legal concept behind the term "advice and consent" means. You need to go back and read Article II, Section 2 [2]:

"He(the President) 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 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 State, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which will be established by law."​

The intention of the "advice and consent" clause was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to ensure that both the executive and legislative branches had equal 50/50 say in who will be placed on the Supreme Court. Only in the modern era has this been mis-understood to assume that the Senate should be little more than a rubber stamp on court nominations by the President, and should only deny those nominees if there are questions raised on grounds of the Ineligibility Clause. The Constitution sets no qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, not even the requirement of having a law degree.

No action on nominees is a means for exercising the Senate's right to "advice and consent". There have been 29 formal nominees to the Supreme Court that were not confirmed. Only 13 of those were denied confirmation by full Senate Vote. The majority of those withdrew when it was evident they would not be confirmed. So there is absolutely zero basis in the Constitution or in subsequent legislation that requires the Senate to take any formal action on a nomination. They can simply exercise their "advice and consent" by stating that the nomination is or will not be viable. Both parties in control of the Senate have exercised this.

The Constitution also gives Congress full authority to determine how many justices serve on the Supreme Court and how many other federal judges in other lower courts can be created. The First Judiciary Act of 1789 established the number of Supreme Court Justices at 6. In later years the numbers where changed to as low as 5 and as high as 10. The Judiciary Act of 1869 established the current court size at 9 members and requires on a quorum of 6 to conduct business. So the court will be fully able to conduct business without a 9th member.

The Constitution also gives Congress the power to tell the Supreme Court which cases it can and cannot hear on appeal. This power has seldom been used, but it's there.

 

[Jan Itor]

Of course I missed it. It never happened.

Your head is so far up your ass that it's literately back on your shoulders.

Good old Huey/Red, his "team" can never do any wrong. Stop following with the rest of the sheep and think for yourself. Use that mind that God, or whatever gave you. Because as long as you continue to defend all things Democrat, you're not using it.

Side note: Did you see Scott Pelley's interview with Hillary? He flat out asked her if she's ever lied to the American people. She danced around it, and eventually said, "no, I don't think so".

Defend that.

 

[Jan Itor]

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?

Again, Harry Reid & Senator Obama.

 

[millhawk]

It happened when they re-elected Obama.

True but if the shoe was on the other foot. You know damn well the dems would be doing the same thing.

 

[Jan Itor]

True but if the shoe was on the other foot. You know damn well the dems would be doing the same thing.

I haven't figured out if he'd believe they would or not. The guy is so lock step with that party that he might actually believe the B.S. they're peddling. Just like Hillary. She may have actually talked herself into believing she's never lied to the American people.

It's a sickness, really.

 

[hawkssox1]

It happened when they re-elected Obama.

This may be the one and only time I am in agreement with you.

 

[Huey Grey]

Your head is so far up your ass that it's literately back on your shoulders.

Good old Huey/Red, his "team" can never do any wrong. Stop following with the rest of the sheep and think for yourself. Use that mind that God, or whatever gave you. Because as long as you continue to defend all things Democrat, you're not using it.

Side note: Did you see Scott Pelley's interview with Hillary? He flat out asked her if she's ever lied to the American people. She danced around it, and eventually said, "no, I don't think so".

Defend that.

Cute. You can't support your claim that Reid said this so you have to shift the conversation towards Hillary. Color me impressed.

 

[Huey Grey]

Who said they weren't going to consider any?

There just not going to consider any until 2017.

Well that's just convenient.

 

[Titanhawk2]

It happened when they re-elected Obama.

and when they elected a Republican Senate to review it.

 

[Huey Grey]

The word "shall" means must. The President and congress have no choice but to act.

This brings up the question if "shall" also applies to the Senate. If so, it is their duty to consider nominees instead of flat-out refusing to do anything to fill the vacancy.

 

[22*43*51]

Well that's just convenient.

House and Senate Republican controlled.

The people have spoken.

 

[Jan Itor]

Cute. You can't support your claim that Reid said this so you have to shift the conversation towards Hillary. Color me impressed.

It's already been posted on here. Go back and find it, Red.

 

[Huey Grey]

Looks like we found something else that Huey doesn't understand. You clearly don't understand what the legal concept behind the term "advice and consent" means. You need to go back and read Article II, Section 2 [2]:

"He(the President) 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 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 State, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which will be established by law."​

The intention of the "advice and consent" clause was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to ensure that both the executive and legislative branches had equal 50/50 say in who will be placed on the Supreme Court. Only in the modern era has this been mis-understood to assume that the Senate should be little more than a rubber stamp on court nominations by the President, and should only deny those nominees if there are questions raised on grounds of the Ineligibility Clause. The Constitution sets no qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, not even the requirement of having a law degree.

No action on nominees is a means for exercising the Senate's right to "advice and consent". There have been 29 formal nominees to the Supreme Court that were not confirmed. Only 13 of those were denied confirmation by full Senate Vote. The majority of those withdrew when it was evident they would not be confirmed. So there is absolutely zero basis in the Constitution or in subsequent legislation that requires the Senate to take any formal action on a nomination. They can simply exercise their "advice and consent" by stating that the nomination is or will not be viable. Both parties in control of the Senate have exercised this.

The Constitution also gives Congress full authority to determine how many justices serve on the Supreme Court and how many other federal judges in other lower courts can be created. The First Judiciary Act of 1789 established the number of Supreme Court Justices at 6. In later years the numbers where changed to as low as 5 and as high as 10. The Judiciary Act of 1869 established the current court size at 9 members and requires on a quorum of 6 to conduct business. So the court will be fully able to conduct business without a 9th member.

Um, what does this have to do with anything I've said? I've never argued that the Senate doesn't have an equal responsibility to help fill vacancies. They absolutely do. Which is why it is puzzling that they are shirking these duties.

Oh, and I still don't see anything in there that says that the Senate doesn't have to do anything when a position opens up. Throw out as many "bys" and "withs" as you want, but there is no legal definition of those terms that means, "To sit on your thumbs."

 

[Huey Grey]

It's already been posted on here. Go back and find it, Red.

Hate to break it to you, but whatever you posted before doesn't apply to your claim.

 

[Jan Itor]

Hate to break it to you, but whatever you posted before doesn't apply to your claim.

I didn't post it. Someone else did.

And how the heck would you know if it doesn't apply to my claim if you haven't seen it? Geez, you are so lock-step with your team you argue without seeing the evidence.

 

[22*43*51]

Um, what does this have to do with anything I've said? I've never argued that the Senate doesn't have an equal responsibility to help fill vacancies. They absolutely do. Which is why it is puzzling that they are shirking these duties.

Oh, and I still don't see anything in there that says that the Senate doesn't have to do anything when a position opens up. Throw out as many "bys" and "withs" as you want, but there is no legal definition of those terms that means, "To sit on your thumbs."

They are going to take their responsibilities seriously.

I just guarantee that the vetting hearings will go well into 2017.

Checks and balances.

 

[Huey Grey]

Your head is so far up your ass that it's literately back on your shoulders.

Good old Huey/Red, his "team" can never do any wrong. Stop following with the rest of the sheep and think for yourself. Use that mind that God, or whatever gave you. Because as long as you continue to defend all things Democrat, you're not using it.

Side note: Did you see Scott Pelley's interview with Hillary? He flat out asked her if she's ever lied to the American people. She danced around it, and eventually said, "no, I don't think so".

Defend that.

I love it that you're getting your panties all in a bunch over a quote that doesn't really exist. It's really quite simple. If Reid ever said that he was going to block every last nominee Bush put forward regardless of who they are or what position they're trying to fill, I'll shut up and eat crow. But he didn't.

 

[Huey Grey]

I didn't post it. Someone else did.

And how the heck would you know if it doesn't apply to my claim if you haven't seen it? Geez, you are so lock-step with your team you argue without seeing the evidence.

You're the one making the claim, Jan. You should be the one to back it up. But we both know it never happened, which is why you're asking me to do your work for you.

 

[Huey Grey]

Again, Harry Reid & Senator Obama.

This has been explained about a million times, but at least Obama knew who he was blocking. He never said, let's block everyone.

 

[22*43*51]

This has been explained about a million times, but at least Obama knew who he was blocking. He never said, let's block everyone.

I would imagine if BHO throws a moderate, or a moderate/conservative out there they will be considered.

If he throws a Moonbat out there, then no nothing will happen.

 

[73chief]

Um, what does this have to do with anything I've said? I've never argued that the Senate doesn't have an equal responsibility to help fill vacancies. They absolutely do. Which is why it is puzzling that they are shirking these duties.

Oh, and I still don't see anything in there that says that the Senate doesn't have to do anything when a position opens up. Throw out as many "bys" and "withs" as you want, but there is no legal definition of those terms that means, "To sit on your thumbs."

They haven't shirked any duties which is the point being made by pretty much everyone and one that your simple mind is not able to comprehend. In fact they have already exercised their advice power. There has not been a nomination made. When their is a nomination made, the Senate can exercise their consent power and do absolutely nothing, which will be a way of rejecting the nomination which is what has been done in more than 15 different times in the past. Until a nomination is made they can exercise their advice function by indicating to a President the potential viability or non-viability of a nomination, which is what they have been doing. This actually goes back to precedent established during the presidency of George Washington.

The ignorance that you and others have shown about how our government works is quite telling and certainly explains the stances you and others take on issues. Come back and talk to us, when you have the ability to understand basic concepts. So I guess we will see you in about 100 years.

 

[IaHawk44]

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.

But Reid never said that Bush shouldn't nominate anyone and that the next president should make the nomination.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-quotes-reid-to-justify-supreme-court-fight/article/2583626

 

[Jan Itor]

You're the one making the claim, Jan. You should be the one to back it up. But we both know it never happened, which is why you're asking me to do your work for you.

It's a real shame that people like you are allowed anywhere near a voting booth. Maybe on election day, we can send your type (uninformed) to the cartoon character elections. At least there, you can do any real damage.

 

[Huey Grey]

They are going to take their responsibilities seriously.

I just guarantee that the vetting hearings will go well into 2017.

Checks and balances.

Sitting on their dicks for a whole year is taking responsibility?

 

[22*43*51]

Sitting on their dicks for a whole year is taking responsibility?

To keep a Moonbat out?

Yes. That is why the people elected them.

 

[Jan Itor]

I love it that you're getting your panties all in a bunch over a quote that doesn't really exist. It's really quite simple. If Reid ever said that he was going to block every last nominee Bush put forward regardless of who they are or what position they're trying to fill, I'll shut up and eat crow. But he didn't.

Okay, I was wrong, it wasn't Reid. I'm eating crow on that one. It was Chuck Schumer. Now, he never got a chance to simply block any Bush nominee from that point on, because the opportunity never came up. And this was with 18 months left on Bush's watch. He's basically saying they cannot allow another conservative on the bench. And they will not confirm anymore nominees from Bush unless they are not conservative.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/...-president-should-not-get-supreme-court-pick/

 

[IaHawk44]

They haven't shirked any duties which is the point being made by pretty much everyone and one that your simple mind is not able to comprehend. In fact they have already exercised their advice power. There has not been a nomination made. When their is a nomination made, the Senate can exercise their consent power and do absolutely nothing, which will be a way of rejecting the nomination which is what has been done in more than 15 different times in the past. Until a nomination is made they can exercise their advice function by indicating to a President the potential viability or non-viability of a nomination, which is what they have been doing. This actually goes back to precedent established during the presidency of George Washington.

The ignorance that you and others have shown about how our government works is quite telling and certainly explains the stances you and others take on issues. Come back and talk to us, when you have the ability to understand basic concepts. So I guess we will see you in about 100 years.

That's hilarious. McConnell flat out said that President Obama shouldn't nominate someone to replace Scalia and that the next president should. You're missing the point here. No Democrat ever suggested that a sitting president should ignore his constitutional duty to nominate an individual for the SCOTUS. Voting and having hearings is a completely different matter.

However if the Senate doesn't hold hearings or if they delay voting for a nominee The People will be fully aware of McConnell's statement and the people will recognize the premeditated obstructionism.

Remember, President Obama's approval number is twice as high as that of Congress, and screwing with a SCOTUS nominee won't help them one bit.

 

[Huey Grey]

But Reid never said that Bush shouldn't nominate anyone and that the next president should make the nomination.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-quotes-reid-to-justify-supreme-court-fight/article/2583626

What I've read said that Reid would only block certain appointees, and none that were related to either the military nor the courts, so long as the Republicans kept blocking his appointees. Apparently this is what Jan thinks is equal to Reid saying he will block every last Bush appointee on the planet.

 

[Jan Itor]

What I've read said that Reid would only block certain appointees, and none that were related to either the military nor the courts, so long as the Republicans kept blocking his appointees. Apparently this is what Jan thinks is equal to Reid saying he will block every last Bush appointee on the planet.

What did you read in the link you just responded to?

 

[Huey Grey]

Okay, I was wrong, it wasn't Reid. I'm eating crow on that one. It was Chuck Schumer. Now, he never got a chance to simply block any Bush nominee from that point on, because the opportunity never came up. And this was with 18 months left on Bush's watch. He's basically saying they cannot allow another conservative on the bench. And they will not confirm anymore nominees from Bush unless they are not conservative.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/...-president-should-not-get-supreme-court-pick/

Look, I'm in no disagreement that Schumer is a dick on this. But he was in the vast minority for making such claims. There is a difference between what a few oddball Dems say that they rest of the part doesn't agree with and what the Republicans are doing today.

 

[Huey Grey]

What did you read in the link you just responded to?

What I talked about wasn't in his link. It was in an article I read yesterday.

 

[aflachawk]

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.

BHO has always tried to win by dividing people never tried actually bringing them together

 

[Jan Itor]

What I talked about wasn't in his link. It was in an article I read yesterday.

Do you have a link to that article?

 

[Jan Itor]

Look, I'm in no disagreement that Schumer is a dick on this. But he was in the vast minority for making such claims. There is a difference between what a few oddball Dems say that they rest of the part doesn't agree with and what the Republicans are doing today.

Who says he was in the minority? Other than you?

 

[Huey Grey]

They haven't shirked any duties which is the point being made by pretty much everyone and one that your simple mind is not able to comprehend. In fact they have already exercised their advice power. There has not been a nomination made. When their is a nomination made, the Senate can exercise their consent power and do absolutely nothing, which will be a way of rejecting the nomination which is what has been done in more than 15 different times in the past. Until a nomination is made they can exercise their advice function by indicating to a President the potential viability or non-viability of a nomination, which is what they have been doing. This actually goes back to precedent established during the presidency of George Washington.

The ignorance that you and others have shown about how our government works is quite telling and certainly explains the stances you and others take on issues. Come back and talk to us, when you have the ability to understand basic concepts. So I guess we will see you in about 100 years.

Actually, they might be shirking their duties. If the "shall" also applies to the Senate, and I think a case can be made that it does, then that clearly means that the Senate is also required to fill vacancies. It's not optional.

And your last paragraph makes me smile. Not my problem your side is getting owned on this.

 

[Huey Grey]

Who says he was in the minority? Other than you?

Where are all the other Dems who said the same thing? The only one I've heard is Schumer.

 

[Huey Grey]

Do you have a link to that article?

"In retaliation for Inhofe’s decision to delay action on Jaczko, Reid will now move to place “holds” on all non-defense, non-judicial nominations sent to the Senate by the White House until Jaczko is approved."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_137/-5885-1.html

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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.

I really don't understand why so many here dwell upon what either the Dems or the GOPs may have said or done in the past. Even to the point where they spout obvious lies like the 80 year lie.

Are you REALLY saying we ought to do what the Dems or GOPs said 5 years ago, or 10 years ago or 50 years ago?

Get real.

The only reason why we are having any of these discussions - here or in the media - is because the GOP doesn't want to approve an Obama nominee.

It's pure politics.

But here's the thing: people understand pure politics. So why not admit it?

Which hurts a party more, admitting they are acting out of purely partisan motives, or pretending they are operating from principle when it's obvious to everybody but intellectual zombies that principle has nothing to do with it?

I want Obama to put someone on the Court because I worry that his replacement will appoint someone worse. Note that if I thought Bernie or Jill would be the next president, I wouldn't mind delaying the appointment.

There, I've said it. My position is entirely political. Did the world come to an end?