Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year SC
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
Well would you look at this, Democrats in 1960 passed a bill not to appoint SC Justice in a election year.
Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot.
😂
Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
Isn't that about the fact they were recess appointments though?Ie Eisenhower appointed them without first getting the Senate's approval which they got later.
Not just the idea of a SC Justice being nominated in an election year?
Obama actually joined filibusters and Justice nominee.
So who was it saying the democrats and Obama are not obstructionists?
Originally posted by Surtur
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.
First President in US History (Obama) to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process
"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."
Its all in writing here
"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.
FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
Hey Omega and Q how you getting around this one😂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama actually joined filibusters and Justice nominee.So who was it saying the democrats and Obama are not obstructionists?
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!
Hey Omega and Q how you getting around this onelaughing out loud
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.
Here's this satire article again
“President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said. “It’s nauseating.”The congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.”
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?
Odds guide for various SCJ possibilities
Yes, 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Barack Obama' are two technical possibilities ^^ (Though not likely for their own reasons)
The most likely?
Sri Srinivasan: 5-2The 48-year-old would be the first Indian-American on the Court. He was appointed to the D.C. Circuit — the nation’s second most important court — by a vote of 97-0 in 2013. No amount of midterm rearranging can change that. Assuming Obama’s goal is to successfully put someone on the Court, setting up the narrative of “well, Mitch, you thought he was competent three years ago… what changed?” is pretty powerful.
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.
Originally posted by Q99
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.
Here's this satire article again
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?
Muddying the waters, chaging the subject to other matters of politics without providing relevance.
The fact is Schumer and Obama himself have philibuster SC nominations.
I notice how you are trying to say its not the same thing but who are you kidding?
What you are saying is its ok for the Dems to do it because, and its not ok for the Reps to do it because thats obstructionism.
So the dems in the senate have the right to use their constitutional right, but not the republicans?
Double standard much?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and [b]with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." [/B]
...
You realise that by being able to say that it is Alito that he rejects that is completely different than what Republicans are doing?
The Republicans have rejected EVERYONE, sight unseen. That's undemocratic and completely against the letter and spirit of 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."
"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."