Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialIs there any time limit on how it should take to approve a new judge to the Supreme Court?
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."
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
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."
Are you agreeing with Schumer?
At any rate he did say he would appoint a judge if they were proven to be in the mainstream...that, again, is completely different to the outright refusal of the Republicans.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you agreeing with Schumer?At any rate he did say he would appoint a judge if they were proven to be in the mainstream...that, again, is completely different to the outright refusal of the Republicans.
Originally posted by NewjakHey Bardock I originally was trying to quote you when I asked this question lol.
Is there any time limit on how it should take to approve a new judge to the Supreme Court?
Do you have any idea on it?
Originally posted by Newjak
Hey Bardock I originally was trying to quote you when I asked this question lol.Do you have any idea on it?
There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years)
Originally posted by Bardock42That is interesting. So I guess there is nothing truly illegal about what they are doing.
There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years)
But to ensure the effectiveness of the Supreme Court I would think people would rather get a new Judge elected earlier rather than later.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years)
He can make a interm recess appointment which still has to be approved, however if they keep people on the floor, it can still be blocked.
Originally posted by SurturHe gets to nominate them but to be fair what the Republicans are doing is pretty stand offish. I mean it's one thing to say you don't like a candidate being nominated but it is entirely something else to say you will block all nominees before they are even brought to the table.
So again does Obama get to NOMINATE someone or appoint them?
I mean if they hold true that means we will now have to wait until the end of the election to get the next Justice which imo makes the Supreme Court less effective currently in doing their job.
Also what happens if Democrats win the election will the Republicans just continue to decline any Justices on principle.
Some of this does come off childish to me
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
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."
A big Ouch for hypocritical liberal democrats.
Originally posted by Newjak
He gets to nominate them but to be fair what the Republicans are doing is pretty stand offish. I mean it's one thing to say you don't like a candidate being nominated but it is entirely something else to say you will block all nominees before they are even brought to the table.I mean if they hold true that means we will now have to wait until the end of the election to get the next Justice which imo makes the Supreme Court less effective currently in doing their job.
Also what happens if Democrats win the election will the Republicans just continue to decline any Justices on principle.
Some of this does come off childish to me
I actually agree that they shouldn't of said they would block all nominees no matter what. Even if that was actually what they intended to do..it was just not a wise move to come out and say that. They could of easily just waited for a nomination and then said they felt the specific candidate wasn't right. Then they could of made it more about the candidate then about Obama.
Originally posted by SurturThat would have been the wise move but then they may have been thinking their core group of supporters would have seen them as weak against Democrats.
I actually agree that they shouldn't of said they would block all nominees no matter what. Even if that was actually what they intended to do..it was just not a wise move to come out and say that. They could of easily just waited for a nomination and then said they felt the specific candidate wasn't right. Then they could of made it more about the candidate then about Obama.
I mean just look at how much bad publicity a photo of Chris Christy hugging Obama brought him with a vocal number of conservatives.
If they decided to actually entertain or pretend to entertain the idea of appointing an Obama Justice who knows how it might hurt them.
Which is silly as can be.
Originally posted by Newjak
That would have been the wise move but then they may have been thinking their core group of supporters would have seen them as weak against Democrats.I mean just look at how much bad publicity a photo of Chris Christy hugging Obama brought him with a vocal number of conservatives.
If they decided to actually entertain or pretend to entertain the idea of appointing an Obama Justice who knows how it might hurt them.
Which is silly as can be.
Sillier then Obama saying he like justice roberts but refused to vote for him?
Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law..."
But, no he wasn't going to vote for him anyway.
"I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination."
Just face it Obama is a hypocrite and you are one for supporting the hypocrisy.
LOL IS THIS GUY FOR REAL