Antonin Scalia dead

2001400ex said:

topdawgnc said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

AZDuck said:

Hippopeteamus said:

AZDuck said:

http://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/698657990421954560

Disagree
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?

Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH

Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.

Ummm, ya think?

Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.

But that's different...

No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.

No. That's not the fucking point.

The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.

Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?

Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.

I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.

I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.

I said he gets to nominate someone.

And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.

And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.

ThomasFremont said:

topdawgnc said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

ThomasFremont said:

Hippopeteamus said:

AZDuck said:

Hippopeteamus said:

AZDuck said:

http://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/698657990421954560

Disagree
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?

Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH

Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.

Ummm, ya think?

Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.

But that's different...

No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.

No. That's not the fucking point.

The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.

Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?

Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.

I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.

I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.

I said he gets to nominate someone.

And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.

Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?