I am so embarrassed for this country and the display our elected officials put on, not to say the jamokes running for President. Supreme Court Justice dies and as the Constitution points out, it is the duty of the sitting President of the United States to nominate a replacement and Congress to work with him in getting replacement on the bench. It does not say that you wait until an election to see what party wins the office of President. It just slays me when guys like Teddy Cruz wave the Constitution in the air and says we must follow this to the letter of the law but now digs in his heels with the Republican party and says we will wait. The irony of course is the Justice that died believed that the Constitution was sacred and should be followed to the letter.. As I said, the whole thing is embarrassing.
When should the Constitution be followed?
- Thread starter toolguru
- Start date
Like I said, the grandstanding and b.s. is judt embarrassing.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear toolguru:
Actually, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the president shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.
It doesn't specifically say the "sitting president" and it doesn't say anything about "Congress working with him" regarding a replacement. Of course, Barack Hussein Obama can submit a nomination, but the Senate can deal with the nomination in any manner it so chooses.
The Constitution doesn't say that the Senate MUST consent. It likewise doesn't say that the Senate can't withhold its consent for partisan reasons. It doesn't demand that the Senate conduct an up-or-down vote -- and in fact, it doesn't say that the Senate MUST act on any nomination at all.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
BOTTOM LINE: The president can nominate, but the U.S. Constitution is clear that in order to appoint, the president needs the consent of the Senate.
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
You silly people... the constitution should only be followed when it is either beneficial to which ever party I agree with, or if it is detrimental to the opposing party I disagree with. Doing right for America gots nothin' ta do with it!
Geez, you guys need to go back to school and take politics again.
Geez, you guys need to go back to school and take politics again.
Bingo! That was my point. When everybody starts putting the country first instead of their party politics, maybe we'll get straightened out. Obama names somebody and the Congress doesn't vote or doesn't approve, the backbiting and partisan stonewalling will continue. The American public will watch closely. If a moderate nominee is put forth and doesn't get approved, the public will take note of all the guys who say they are Constitutionists but really aren't.and vote them out of office. The country needs people who can get things done, not just posture.
Good Times Good Times
Active Member
How things change when reality becomes a political bitch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...rt-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285
"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senatorvoted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
There is no precedent for delaying a court nominee review and vote over a year to run out the term of a sitting president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...rt-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285
"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senatorvoted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
There is no precedent for delaying a court nominee review and vote over a year to run out the term of a sitting president.
Last edited:
If only it were that simple. At this point in time, it doesn't matter what any politician does the millennials, illegals, minority groups, etc. are going to vote for the person offering the most free shit, and has the weakest border. The majority doesn't care about history, the constitution, economics, infrastructure, etc. When you begin to discuss these matters, these people stare at you like deer in your headlights. Seriously, look what Hillary has done. Thousands and thousands of classified emails have slipped thru her unsecured and illegal server. These emails are being released on a weekly basis and she still carries the dem party. You could put a convicted mass murderer on the ticket and if he promised to legalize cannabis, open the borders and tax the rich, that fucker would win the office.
Robadat
Member
How about they bury the guy before dancing on his grave, and worrying about how soon he gets replaced and by whom?
The facts, at present are that we have a very liberal, democrat President and a Republican controlled Senate.
Obama should, if he wants to avoid a confrontation with the Senate, nominate a moderate Judge for the open slot that can pass Senate muster.
My gut feeling is he won't. He'll try to appoint another far left Judge and the Senate, as is their Constitutional Right, will reject that nominee if the Senate feels he is too far to the left.
The facts, at present are that we have a very liberal, democrat President and a Republican controlled Senate.
Obama should, if he wants to avoid a confrontation with the Senate, nominate a moderate Judge for the open slot that can pass Senate muster.
My gut feeling is he won't. He'll try to appoint another far left Judge and the Senate, as is their Constitutional Right, will reject that nominee if the Senate feels he is too far to the left.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
When should the Constitution be followed?
ALWAYS! ... and someone should inform and remind Barack Hussein Obama of that.
ALWAYS! ... and someone should inform and remind Barack Hussein Obama of that.
I think he'll go moderate. We will see if they can be adults or will go on acting like petulant children. As far as other comments go, I'm pretty sure other admins did not follow the Constitution every day either. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't thinks so. I feel in this day and age the Constitution should be a guide, not the end all be all. The thing was written in a time so different thsn today I feel the only thing televant is the Bill of Rights. To not evolve is to become extinct. As to the borders? Four states have a problem with illegals and most of it would stop if all the law aboding citizens that live in them would wuit hiring them and paying them under the table. That wall will never get built nor should it.
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
But where else can I get my lawn cut for $5, or a roof put on my house for $800?
Good Times Good Times
Active Member
By assuring Obama that he need not worry that a nominee will actually serve on the Court, McConnell empowered and invited the president to play radical politics with the nomination.
On the other hand, if Obama nominates a moderate judge and Republicans reject him or her, only to lose the presidential election and Senate this fall, they will have traded a slightly-liberal court for a very liberal one, as a new Democratic president with a Senate-majority would likely nominate a true liberal next year.
Are Republicans so confident in the likelihood of one of these alternatives that they’re willing to risk the worst possible outcome? Are they so horrified by the modest liberal victories that would come with the confirmation of a moderate as to deploy a strategy that could bring the second coming of the Warren Court? And, just as critically, are they really certain that a presidential election entirely focused on the impact of the court on American life, as this one surely now will, plays to their advantage? Most Americans, after all, DESPISE Citizens United and want to R v Wade on the books. An election that focuses overwhelmingly on money in politics and first-trimester abortion is a losing election for Republicans.
Republicans have taken the position that a subsequent election in the House or Senate nullifies the President's election. I know Republicans are strong advocates of the Constitution. I just don't know what Constitution they have in mind. I can't find the one where the Presidency ceases when majorities in the House or Senate change.
Last edited:
Schumer made the threat. Google it. Now as I said, let's see if McCuck follows through.
You and some others are missing the bigger (hUUUger) picture: If the senate bends to the will of BHO, there will be political hysteria. This will give Trump the edge he needs for the GOP nomination. So does the establishment GOP want to ensure a Trump nomination or not? Will they cave or not?