The point that you do not view or are uncertain that the legislature is a co-equal branch of government is exactly onethe problems of this country and specifically the Obama administration that views the executive branch as above the other 2. If the president wants to get his nomination approved, he could very well put partisan politics aside and nominate a conservative judge who will hold true to the constitution. One whose credentials are undeniable that it would make a mockery of the Senate republicans for trying to block it. But we all know he will not do that. He will nominate an activist leftist judge who will be more interested in legislating from the bench than actually interpreting the constitutionality of the laws and in doing so he will be the one playing partisan politics. I do think the Senate republicans are morons. They should have just kept their mouth shuts, let the President make his nomination and then just do what they need to do if the nominee is what we all expect and know what an Obama nominee will be.
In th No, the Senate is allowed to follow it's rules and procedures. Here's the problem...once upon a time in a land long ago and far away, Advice and Consent came before the submission of nominees. "Mr. Majority Leader" here's a list...who can you get the votes for. And there are a dozen arcane Senate rules amd procedures that cam prevent a nominee from even getting a hearing. And in cases like this SCOTUS usually finds that it is a Political issue, not a Legal one. Senators face re-election like every one else, Now, the President could probably get A&C on a recess appointment (the Senate can block that too) if he chooses to work in a bi partisan manner. My guess is, he will try to nominate a female, possibly minority, that is objectionable to the Senate, to get more political capital for the election.... We shall see
Yes, the difference between attempting something and succeeding is failure. The impetus behind the act remains the same. If by chance they do in some way attempt to stop a nominee outside of the normal process, they will then have done exactly what was done to Alito. If they succeed in stopping the nomination they will have just avoided failure of their original plan.
That's not what I said, you need to read for content. The three branches are equal and as part of that equality is the process where each branch has a check on the function of the other two. It's not clear whether that checking is "co-equal" to the original function being checked; an argument could be made either way. Your second paragraph flies in the face of reality and the names already put out as possible nominees, but that would not avail you that know-it-all catchphrase "He will nominate an activist leftist." It seems that the name mentioned most often this week is Sri Srinivasan who, when being confirmed for the Court of Appeals in 2013, passed the Senate confirmation process 97-0; hardly the results for an "activist leftist," after all, he had been a clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor. You may want to delve a little deeper before you've declared yourself so sure of "what we all expect and know."
Once again, the attempt was to stop the vote on the nominee and there is no question there was a filibuster. "throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process", sounds like an attempt to stop things to me.
So, Mitch McConnell has delivered this advice, much as he has for seven years, "Drop dead, you'll never get our consent." Do you believe that to be the intent of those who penned the Constitution?
As well he should. He was nominated and evaluated fairly by the Senate; there was no predetermination that he, or anyone else would not be heard. He was defeated 58-42 based on his own words and actions, like approving a poll tax.
Absolutely wrong. There was no filibuster, only a weak effort, easily abandoned, to establish one. Not a grain of sand flew; Alito got his hearing and was confirmed, albeit by a rather narrow margin.
The past efforts you are so concerned about were attempts to negotiate the nomination of a more moderate justice than Alito (in that particular case). It is unprecedented for a Majority Leader with the full membership of the majority in the Judiciary Committee, apparently along with almost all members of the Senate majority, to say in advance that NO nominee will even be considered. Such a position is at variance with the Constitution. Also a bunch of nonsense is the argument, whoever makes it, that the Senate should wait for an election 8 months away, the elected from which will not be seated for 11 months, to " give voice to the people" - that also is not in the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear - the president nominates, the Senate considers as part of its responsibility to advise and consent. The real reason that McConnell is taking the position he has is twofold. One is he is appealing to the far right of the GOP base voters who may otherwise support Tea Party challenges to his members up for election this year, as has happened in the past. The second is he does not want to hold hearings because he has to be concerned that an Obama nominee will look quite reasonable to the American people, and then they will wonder why the GOP does not confirm such a person. None of this is contemplated by the Constitution.
Art. II of the Constitution: ". . . 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 . . . ." Anybody understand how "advice and consent" came to be "confirmed by a majority"? If I'm Obama, I'm nominating somebody, and giving the Senate the opportunity to do whatever it feels like doing with him, and if they choose to do nothing, appointing him and instructing him to take his seat. What's the Senate going to do to stop him? Call the police?
The congress could immediately dismantle the 9th circuit, and invoke the nuclear option and drop the number of SCOTUS judges from 9 to 5. They send the vill to the President who refuses to sign it, propelling the country into another Constitutional crisis, with the court split 4-4. (You are aware I presume that 9 is not a Constitutionally mandated number Which part of "consent of the Senate" escapes you?
I was aware of that, thanks. If it came to that, that'd be a pretty badass thing to do, I say go for it. Your party is basically hari kari-ing itself anyway, why not just strap dynamite around your waists and take out as many civilians as you can. I think "consent" could plausibly mean acquiescence to something without taking any affirmative steps one way or another. I mean, if you are a strict textualist like our recently departed St. Nino, you have to admit that the document either means what it says and says what it means or that somehow "consent" has been interpreted to mean "confirmation by a majority of votes of sitting Senators." Maybe that's the way its been done since day 1, I have no idea. But "confirmation" is not in the text of the instrument itself. It's at least arguable. Maybe not the strongest argument you're going to hear, but that's not the point. What isn't arguable is that the president "shall" nominate and appoint. That means the act is mandatory and he has no discretion to wait until nobody's feelings are going to get hurt.
Actually Congress couldn't do any of the things that Hobbes suggested. Congress literally can't do anything without the signature of the executive attached to their work unless the effects of what they are doing are bound solely in the legislative branch. They can't step into the judicial or the executive branches and make changes without the executive's signature to make their suggestions into law, or in the absence of such an over-ride of his veto by a two-thirds majority vote in each house of Congress. Note that sending a bill to the President isn't enough to cause a Constitutional Crisis. The President can just veto it and crisis averted. A bill not signed or veto'd is just a piece of paper with ideas on it. It's not capable of causing some cataclysmic clash of Constitutional processes. There's a process involved and due to separation of powers the executive and legislative have to concur before a Constitutional Crisis presents itself. Congress could impeach sitting Justices and then block all replacements, but again it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict on an impeachment and I suspect the votes aren't there to do that. Congress could also not appropriate funds for the courts in question, however that would be a 2017 thing because the Judiciary already has it's operating funds for 2016. Also, the voters would shriek if the court system got shut down as part of a political ploy. "GOP Stands in the Way of Justice!" would become a meme and that's not the meme anybody wants going on against them in an election year. Dierking is right though that the GOP is circling the drain right now. People don't take a party that is not willing to govern seriously. Even the GOP electorate is unwilling to support the GOP in it's current posture. More than half the electorate has voted for somebody outside the establishment in each primary so far and the GOP's favored son had trouble breaking 10% of the vote, in a GOP controlled tea party.
They I said they cam send any bill to the President. He will be the first one to open up the Constitutional crisis argument, they cam offer to solve it for him...crisis is not averted as SCOTUS is the court of first resort for issues between States amd other less occurring issues.
GOP circling the drain? Thats bass ackwards... Republicans control the House, the Senate, and 56 percent of Governorships, state Senate seats and House seats. Right now.
If Obama doesn't like the bill he can veto it. How in the absence of a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress to over-ride that veto does sending the bill create any kind of crisis at all? If they successfully over-ride the veto then the Constitutional Crisis is averted. If they fail to over-ride the veto the Constitutional Crisis is averted. If they don't take up the veto for a vote the Constitutional Crisis is averted. Assuming they over-ride the veto the Supreme Court will eventually deal with the issue and assuming the vote is 4-4 there the Constitutional Crisis is again averted as the law is upheld and becomes Constitutional as a result. However a bill gutting the judiciary would not be 4-4 in the Supreme Court. It would be 8-0 against and the Constitutional process would preserved in the best way. Justice Scalia would have made it 9-0 against a partisan attempt to rig the judiciary in an attempt to punish the executive.
Ye Yes he can veto ot, and the Republicans can fuck around with it using all manner of Parliamentary procedures, until November. At that point the argument becomes even more legitimate about not accepting a nominee... And given the current Senate electoral landscape, it may be President Trump and a narrowly Democrat Senate... And it is fairly instructive given the rank politicization of appointing jusges over the last 40 years, to look back on C.J. Roberts decision on Obamacare... Paraphrasing... "It os not our job to save the people from their political choices" ... They would go 4-4 until a new AdministraTion and Congress could work it out.
Once again you are completely wrong but will refuse to admit it. I'll repost the little snippet where Obama's Press Secretary talks about how he joined the filibuster and how Democrats "engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears", Obama's Press Sec.'s words not mine. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called Obama's decision to join in the filibuster of Alito in 2006 a "symbolic vote" based on specific objections to Alito's rulings as a lower court judge. "What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn't focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections," Earnest said. "Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that's an approach that the president regrets."
Quote all you want. You are just plain wrong. No filibuster took place during the confirmation hearings or vote for Alito to become a Supreme Court justice. "filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions." - www.senate.gov If you are so damned sure it did, don't post vague quotes that you have obviously misunderstood, post a legitimate news source report of that filibuster. In the absence of any report, just admit you were wrong.
