subgenius wrote: I can't find the text in the Constitution that requires the Senate to do anything beyond "as they think proper" with the President nomination.....
so, please help me out with this "clear and unambiguous" text you speak of
The "as they think proper" doesn't apply to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices (only "inferior officers".)
The current argument of the Senate Republicans is based around an idea that the nomination should delayed until the next President takes office. As you have pointed out, there is no such provision in the Constitution. The President (who at this time is Obama) is given the task of appointing Supreme Court Justices. Now that Obama has done so, the Senate can give him their "advice" and "consent". But if they object not based on the quality of the nomination but on ideas about a balance in the court, an upcoming election or some other political spin (none of which are found in the Constitution) then they are contradicting the Constitution.
If you think this is the right thing to do according to the procedures set out in the Constitution (and you would fully support the Democrats doing this to a Republican president), then good for you. And if you think it is okay to do this because the balance of the Supreme Court is more important than the Constitutional procedure, then so be it.
All I can say (and I hate to say it as a conservative), but if this is the game Senate Republicans play then I hope Clinton wins, gets a Senate majority, and appoints an extremely young, healthy judge that is to the left of Bernie Sanders. And for the next 50 years, every time Republicans see her sitting up there and voting for the most left positions on cases, they remember that one time Obama had nominated a really good moderate candidate and they blew it.
1. At least the "clear and unambiguous" had been resolved. 2. Approving a nominee based on fear for a future yet to be realized is a far worse exercise of judgment.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote:The framers of the Constitution who wrote the section in question did not anticipate the rise of political parties that would vote in unison for strategic reasons. That's why the 12th amendment became necessary. The idealized version of the language was that each individual member of the Senate would vote on a nomination by attempting to fairly evaluate qualifications. Because the Constitution didn't anticipate parliamentary bloc voting (or lack of it) on judicial appointments, it didn't do anything to explicitly address it.
This does not mean the the Constitution requires the Senate to give an up or down vote. That's far from clear and I don't think it does. We can strenuously object to Republican obstructionism - which I do in this case - while simultaneously believing they have the power to do it.
It is naïve to think that the framers were unaware of bipartisanship. Federalist and anti federalist was not a flash in the pan. Our system is clearly reliant on an antagonistic relationship between the Congress and the Executive. This is the heart of check and balance
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
cinepro wrote:The current argument of the Senate Republicans is based around an idea that the nomination should delayed until the next President takes office.
They are hoping that either Donald Trump or that Canadian rattler will nominate a candidate with a limited view of the Constitution.
If they are not successful in this Presidential election, wonder if they will obstruct the nomination until 2020?
subgenius wrote:It is naïve to think that the framers were unaware of bipartisanship. Federalist and anti federalist was not a flash in the pan. Our system is clearly reliant on an antagonistic relationship between the Congress and the Executive. This is the heart of check and balance
Why was the 12th amendment needed if Madison et. al. correctly anticipated parliamentary bloc voting? The idea of ideologically like-minded groups forming was not foreign to the ideas underneath the Constitution. The idea that people would form political parties and vote on purely partisan grounds for strategic purposes rather than according to individual conscience very much was.
Of course, the idea of political parties was not unheard of in the years leading up to the Constitution, but they hadn't developed in the US and it was viewed more as a concern to be avoided than an eventuality to be addressed. That's why our Constitution makes no mention of them and is written as though they wouldn't exist.
Checks and balances has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Brackite wrote:Hopefully, Senate Republicans will change their minds before election day.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if Clinton appears to be a shoo-in this fall. I guarantee you a Clinton nominee will be to the left of Merrick Garland. After all, to the victor belongs the spoils, or in the Republican's words, the people have spoken. So if Clinton is ahead in the fall, do you think some Republicans will get cold feet and push for Garland's confirmation? Better the devil you know than the one you don't...
That's kind of what congressman Jeff Flake is saying right now. I think the Democrats have a point on this one. The Republicans lost the election of 2012 and another liberal supreme court justice is the consequence. So far at least the supreme court is only hurting Republicans on social issues. I'm not aware of the Supreme court being responsible for high taxation, globalization, and illegal immigration. Those are the things that are destroying the economic lives of middle class Americans. If the Republicans could stay focused on those issues, I think the voters might start doing the right thing and try to save the country, if indeed that is still possible. Otherwise it's going to continue to be a march to the economic bottom where the US becomes indistinguishable from any other Latin American country.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Brackite wrote:Hopefully, Senate Republicans will change their minds before election day.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if Clinton appears to be a shoo-in this fall. I guarantee you a Clinton nominee will be to the left of Merrick Garland. After all, to the victor belongs the spoils, or in the Republican's words, the people have spoken. So if Clinton is ahead in the fall, do you think some Republicans will get cold feet and push for Garland's confirmation? Better the devil you know than the one you don't...
Yes, I do think that if Hillary is still leading Trump in the polls during the fall, that more Senate Republicans will get 'cold feet' and push for Garland's confirmation hearings. And that is what I am really hoping for with myself being a moderate. I want Garland to be the next Justice on the the Supreme Court, since he is a moderate/center-left Justice. If Hillary becomes the next President with a Democratic Senate, she is going to nominate an ultra-liberal Justice. And I don't want the next Justice of the the Supreme Court to be an ultra-liberal.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
canpakes wrote:Subs, what would be the reason why the Senate would not or should not consider Merrick for appointment?
subs, I'm sure that you have some good reasons. ; )
The "reason" is irrelevant and is not mentioned in nor required by the Constitution.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent