It seems people are using the word "appointed" and "nominated" interchangeably. But to me a nomination is something that doesn't guarantee a spot, just the possibility of one. Appointing someone is full on giving them a position.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
"On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."
__________________
In order for any life to matter, we all have to matter
Last edited by Time-Immemorial on Feb 16th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
"Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."
True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?
I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."
It could not be simpler. The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, then the president can appoint him. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation.
__________________
In order for any life to matter, we all have to matter
In comparison to the Republicans? It's not even close.
Yes, filibusters get used- and they're supposed to be used- but you aren't supposed to use it for everything. Furthermore, I'll point out that the Republicans threatened to shut down the government multiple times, and did shut down the government once, in order to try and obstruct things. They go to creative new heights of obstructionism.
Note that the longest gap for a nominee is still several months- and Obama is certainly going to go for a middle-of-the-road nominee here no less, not a Sotomayor or Kagan.
The problem is the Republicans are trying to block what is a directly-outlined in the constitution power of the President for no reason other than 'we don't like him.'
And seriously, why are you even trying to play this card? You have criticized the Republicans- especially John Boehner- for not being obstructionist enough!
We'd get around it if it was even in our path. Note how there's one grand flaw-
The supreme court nominee in question wasn't blocked, and the people who recommended blocking weren't the Majority Leader.
Republicans are allowed to be against specific people, to be sure. They're allowed to complai. Saying they absolutely will not allow anyone for a year because *they* want to nominate someone, though?
And, importantly, if they actually go through with it rather than just make a show? (I mean, if this is just hot air, then that's fine)
Well, that's clearly trying to grab power that is not theirs to have. The constitution is rather direct on the issue, and the level of blocking they're saying they'll do is unprecedented.
It's a satire, but sums it up well. Why is it that the Republicans- and you specifically- are so willing to act like it's their right to stop anything the President does when the President uses legally granted powers in specifically outlined ways? Do you not get that he is the elected leader of the country? Your President?
I will add that I appreciate that Time is clearly putting more research into these things, but the situation still isn't the same... unless McConnell turns out to be just saber rattling.
Yes, 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Barack Obama' are two technical possibilities ^^ (Though not likely for their own reasons)
The most likely?
Going for the person that no Republicans voted against 3 years ago seems like a real gimmie- it puts McConnell between a rock and a hard place, public wise it'd be very hard to block Sri as anything except blocking for the heck of it.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
The Republicans have stated they will delay and obstruct any nominee, that's completely different from looking at a nominee and deciding to vote against them, and it's completely against the constitutions that Republicans lie about wanting to uphold.
Wrong
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."
__________________
In order for any life to matter, we all have to matter
Last edited by Time-Immemorial on Feb 16th, 2016 at 03:37 PM
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."
"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."
__________________
In order for any life to matter, we all have to matter
KMC Community Forums
Feb 15th, 2016 04:11 AM
