:thumbsup:
I was thinking about that earlier today, and your remark seems to clarify.
:thumbsup:To find your answer you have to look no further than the idiots that support them. They obstruct and delay because their base demands it. They are required to do what their base wants because they rigged it to ensure only repubs get elected.
We won't have real reform unless we have unbiased and fair districts. Separating the red and the blue only ensures that compromise is a losing platform.
People think it's money in politics that's destroying our government but that's only a small part of it, gerrymandered districts is the biggest issue.
when democrats planned to not confirm bush nominations how many on the left here complained?
hypocrisy is heavy on both sides.
The Constitution disagrees with you.The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination. ...
Its not clear what you're specifically talking about here, but as noted the Schumer statement seemed to only specifically apply to a theoretical scenario after the Presidential election. (Rather than something like blocking any possible nomination for virtually a year and probably a year in practice by the time a theoretical Republican nomination could go through.)when democrats planned to not confirm bush nominations how many on the left here complained?
hypocrisy is heavy on both sides.
No, probably not in your world. In the real world, however ...No, it does not.
No, probably not in your world. In the real world, however ...
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.
Its not clear what you're specifically talking about here, but as noted the Schumer statement seemed to only specifically apply to a theoretical scenario after the Presidential election. (Rather than something like blocking any possible nomination for virtually a year and probably a year in practice by the time a theoretical Republican nomination could go through.)
The Schumer statement was also a single individual who was not the Senate majority leader, which is a substantially different situation than the considerable Senate Republicans (including the majority leader) currently publicly talking about their blanket blockage strategy. Beyond that, if you're talking about cases where Democrats opposed specific nominees, that's a very different matter than Republicans saying they flat out won't accept any nominee proposed by Obama essentially regardless of the individual's merits.
In other words they can be like striking McDonald's workers who refuse to work because they want higher pay. Just its not about pay....
This.
The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.
The President doesn't rule by Fiat. If he wants a compromise, then he can compromise.
I was just about post the exact gems. I'd also add that historically the Republican aren't accurate either multiple SCs have been confirmed during election years.
Seriously, it's getting so ridiculous and watching the Republican Party die is just embarrassing.
This.
The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.True. Some things are left unsaid, like the integrity of the Senate to fulfill the mandate of the People. Looks like repubs may not live up to that assumption. We didn't elect them to not do it, did we?
Repubs have already said they won't do it at all. What kind of compromise should Obama offer in the face of that other than a mainstream nominee?
And what is the mandate of the people? They have the majority for a reason.
Because they know who he would nominate.
I did. I laughed at you.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.
This.
The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.
The President doesn't rule by Fiat. If he wants a compromise, then he can compromise.
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.No, it does not.
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.
The key phrasing in question is...
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
First of all its rather clear Obama would be outright failing in his constitutionally required duties if he didn't pick a nominee since the phrasing is "shall nominate" rather than leaving it optional or the like. Especially as the founding father's were clearly thinking of things, the "advice" part requires the Senate to actually consider and debate the specific nominee so the President can at least know the reasonably grounds the Senate happens to object to that specific nominee.
Its also incredibly clear that for instance James Madison was certainly not thinking of a party arbitrarily blocking consideration of any nominee for essentially a year while hoping their candidate wins the Presidency when he was involved with writing the provision that way.
(For a historical early example of a late term Supreme Court appointment, John Marshall was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on January 20th of 1800 and confirmed on January 27th, while John Adam's time as President ended on March 4th of 1800. While Thomas Jefferson came in as the opposing party's candidate for President and was not happy with the nomination, he accepted it and certainly never suggested something like the Constitution didn't envision a President nominating and confirming new court vacancies late in their term.)
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.
The key phrasing in question is...
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
First of all its rather clear Obama would be outright failing in his constitutionally required duties if he didn't pick a nominee since the phrasing is "shall nominate" rather than leaving it optional or the like. Especially as the founding father's were clearly thinking of things, the "advice" part requires the Senate to actually consider and debate the specific nominee so the President can at least know the reasonably grounds the Senate happens to object to that specific nominee.
Its also incredibly clear that for instance James Madison was certainly not thinking of a party arbitrarily blocking consideration of any nominee for essentially a year while hoping their candidate wins the Presidency when he was involved with writing the provision that way.
(For a historical early example of a late term Supreme Court appointment, John Marshall was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on January 20th of 1800 and confirmed on January 27th, while John Adam's time as President ended on March 4th of 1800. While Thomas Jefferson came in as the opposing party's candidate for President and was not happy with the nomination, he accepted it and certainly never suggested something like the Constitution didn't envision a President nominating and confirming new court vacancies late in their term.)
First of all, it should be noted that if a Senator legitimately believes a judicial candidate is not sane, that would be a completely valid reason to reject him as a candidate. (There was also a slightly less severe position that Rutledge had demonstrated recent behavior which put in question his general judgement which could impact his effectiveness as a judge rather than it simply being a matter of him expressing political opinions.) There also was evidence of Rutledge suffering from issues with alcoholism by the point he was rejected by the Senate, which also would be a completely legitimate reason to block his nomination to such an important post.What about the rejection of Rutledge?
Rejection of USSC nominations based upon political ideology has been going on since the very beginning. They didn't even consider him and they rejected him by using attacks against his sanity, then attacks against his "imprudence".
Wow, I wonder what changed between then an now. More choice McCain quotes:2005 McCain said:“The American Voter Was Very Well Aware Of What Kind Of Judge The President Of The United States Was Going To Appoint And They Decided To Reelect Him.”
To say that Hillary and Republicans are same is frankly stupid.I too believe a Dem will win in November. Probably not Sanders though. I'll write him in on the ballot, but Hillary seems to have the system rigged in such a way that Sanders doesn't have a chance. As for November, the GoP will likely have a hard time of it. Congress will still get a decent showing as the nutter butters in the base will keep their respective senator or Representative in place. Superior gerrymandering will secure the rest. But sending Cruz or Trump or Rubio to the White House is a much tougher nut to crack on the national level.
Especially when the GoP has basically hammered Hillary as hard as they could and succeeded only in battle hardening her. She'll have a polished answer to every tired old question asked her for the 100th time, has become a master of deflection and is most likely the most polished debater in 2016. If the GoP really wanted to topple her they should have gone easy on her the past couple years and abruptly go guns ablaze in the home stretch. Instead they just made her more resilient.
For my part though I don't think anything will change. It depresses me. The only change in this county extends as far as the social issues. The rest will just continue to be the same old downward spiral of enriching the elite at the expense of all else. Doesn't matter if Hillary or Bush or Cruz or Rubio occupies the White House. Spend more than you take in, grow government, bomb bomb bomb. They're all the same.