Yes they do...most notably 2014!
Not in any world. Nowhere does it say "Congress must consider". It says "...and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". The Senate doesn't have to give advice, nor consent, nor consider.
Deal with it.
Then the President should nominate somebody that the people approve of. People toss around that the President has the mandate since he was elected, as if that means he gets what he wants. The Senate was also elected, and has their own mandate.
If the court can't do their job, then it is up to the President to nominate somebody the Senate feels is acceptable. I have no doubt they will affirm somebody like Scalia again maybe he should do that.
They have the ability to do what they want. The constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.See was that so painful? The President should nominate someone who is qualified for the job and the Senate should take a reasonable approach to admitting them, not filibuster for 11 months.
Based on the behavior pattern of the Republicans in Congress as of late, they'll get into serious fights with themselves after the 2nd or 3rd nominee is obstructed, especially if Obama serves up a moderate and the polls are showing the Republican President nominee looking a lot like a hellbound snowball.
If the republicans thought that Clinton or especially Sanders was going to win the White House they would be better off taking an Obama appointee. If they think they have a chance of losing control of the senate they are really better off taking an Obama pick.
At least with Obama the Senate can demand someone closer to the middle. They will have a harder time making that demand and continuing obstructionism under a new democratic president. And of course all bets are off if they lose the senate (which is a real possibility...not a foregone conclusion but not one they can easily ignore either).
Of course the democrats can do that math too and at some point decide to stop putting forward a nominee.
It is all a gamble really and neither side can know for certain. Still, there are some scenarios where I think republicans would actually rather have an Obama nominee than anyone other than a republican president.
My guess is they will drag their heels till near or after the conventions and then see where things stand. It will be interesting if democrats win the presidency and win the senate in November and the new president nominates Obama to the court. While I actually think he might make a good justice, the spectacle of the wailing and ganshing of teeth it would cause among the GOP would be epic and entertaining.
That isn't how it works and you know it.If the position of the Senate is we won't advise or consent or consider then Obama just makes a recess appointment. Done.
If he did indeed nominate a 'moderate'...I believe Republicans would be hard pressed to reject him/her. Going "all in" on the outcome of the November election only makes sense if a decidedly liberal candidate is nominated imo.Because history shows Obama will nominate a moderate? rigghht.
They have the ability to do what they want. The constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.
Because history shows Obama will nominate a moderate? rigghht.
See was that so painful? The President should nominate someone who is qualified for the job and the Senate should take a reasonable approach to admitting them, not filibuster for 11 months.
Obama on Roberts said "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"
Obama voted against Roberts.
Obama on Alito ""I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said in January 2006. "
Obama on Roberts said "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"
Obama voted against Roberts.
Obama on Alito ""I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said in January 2006. "
Even if he nominates a moderate, it completely changes the balance of the court. Scalia was the most conservative member of the court. Replacing him with a moderate would drastically change the rulings coming out of the court.
Even if he nominates a moderate, it completely changes the balance of the court. Scalia was the most conservative member of the court. Replacing him with a moderate would drastically change the rulings coming out of the court.
And it should. It's 2016, not 1950 anymore. The composition of the court should change to reflect society, which like it or not is much more progressive today.
Given the ENORMOUS implications of the selection, both parties are going to be hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained by pointing it out.
The left sure likes to point it out by going after McConnel as if he's doing something terribly unique.
The left sure likes to point it out by going after McConnel as if he's doing something terribly unique.
The idea that you guys are going to get someone as right as scalia is unrealistic.
I've got to hold him at arm's length and suspended judgment.
I still think Citizens United was a disaster. But was it the court's disaster? Or does it simply point toward a legislative solution from a legislature which ignores it as a problem?
Remembering what I was like 40 years ago as a "fence-sitter" of naïve indifference, I also now find it almost difficult to understand the friendship with Ginsberg.
The natural reaction comes with a desire to stack the court mildly left of center. And, knowing that, also not knowing precisely how you would see the decision outcomes in the future. Because -- there's more to the Supremes than following some ideological mantra, and even Scalia implied as much.
That isn't how it works and you know it.
Careful of the slippery slope you are advocating there. Because I don't think you want to remove consent requirements from a lot of things.
He has the right to nominate, not appoint.What should be done is Obama nominates. The Senate holds hearings and votes.
Any problem with that?
Only mentioned recess appointment if the Senate opts out of taking any action. President has the right to appoint.