General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf President Obama does not appoint the next Supreme court justice we will have a right winged
crazy person taking this spot in 2017. Someone who will vote to kill Roe V Wade and every other good thing this country has. The person will be a racist and greedy maleficent person just like Trump
Even if the rat bastard republicans stand watch in congress so he can't appoint one on recess he can appoint one with an executive power. Let them fight it next year. This is an extraordinary situation.
Or can someone pull the fire alarm in the House and he can do the appointment right then? (j/k but not)
The right has deceived, blocked, lied, stolen and been malicious and greedy and we need to do something to fight it.
I am sick of Democrats always following the rules. It's gotten us right where we are.
calguy
(5,309 posts)and we will. This is what happens when enough people on our side don't vote.
Welcome to the future.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)stop that we will never have any power anymore.
I wish people would stop saying that narcissistic won the election because he didn't. The electoral college was stolen and Hillary won the popular vote.
The only way this will not happen in the future is if we face it now and do something about it. Blaming this fiasco on Democrats will help nothing
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)CrossCheck alone wiped many more voters off the rolls than Captain Carotene's margins in WI, MI and PA.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)be counted? I think they went after the places that could get them the electoral votes and hacked them there.
Remember at the beginning of election day FL was given a 97% chance of going for Hillary? According to early voting polls trump needed to win 57% of the vote ON ELECTION DAY to win.
And he won FL.
There was selective hacking going on and it was set up to win the electoral college for trump.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Look, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. That's your prerogative.
Bottom line is that the President has no constitutional authority whatsoever to unilaterally appoint a Supreme Court justice without advice and consent of the Senate. You apparently don't want to believe that, either, but it's true nonetheless.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)They always do shitty crappy things to hurt this country.
Their advise and consent to the government about the Supreme Court nominee was to ignore it. They didn't hold a vote to say they don't approve. They just ignored it.
At some point the president can step in I would think
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Can you cite a passage in the Constitution to support that supposition?
Hint: There isn't one.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)she lost he won , get over it and start concentrating on how we can take back congress in 2018
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)My apologies if that was not your intention, but he simply doesn't have the power to unilaterally fill the vacancy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)of the election.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)done is reprehensible. (I can't even remember the name of the nominee)
There must be something he can do.
What are they going to do to him? Impeach him? And I know he is a man of character but this seems like an exceptional situation with the alternative being severe damage to the welfare of the US citizens.
And I don't think they should be able to get away with not even allowing a vote on the appointment
Then again can the Democrats block the next appointee?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)treatment of Garland's nomination. It's ugly, but a recess appointment for one year isn't going to accomplish much if anything.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If anything, the refusal to process Garland was a winning issue for the GOP (judging by results). So that means that we are where we are.
What it may do is cause the SC to reconsider the NLRB ruling at some later date, but that ruling was caused by an apparent overreach in recess appointments, so there is nothing at all to be gained by President Obama trying to make some unconstitutional move now.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)Impeach him? Sure they would try and undo it but that will take up time and resources that they may not want to use right in the beginning of asshole's presidency
onenote
(42,703 posts)I would certainly hope anyone we would want to be a SCOTUS justice has more respect for the Constitution than to accept such an appointment.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)Supreme Court justice. This can only be done with the advice and consent of Congress. End of story. It's time to move on and move forward. There are many other fish to fry here. Let's try to focus on the battles we can win.
beaglelover
(3,484 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He saw the writing on the wall. We got screwed.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)I can't wait for these progressive puritans to look their kids in the eye and tell them they voted for Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or no one at all.
We're royally fucked for a generation now.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Supported Bernie, Held my nose and voted for HRC, but I find your comment more than unkind.
HRC and the DNC lost this election, the GOP did not win it.
marlakay
(11,468 posts)Who think no one should have run against Hillary, no primary.
Everything within me says that is not rght.
I was like you voted for Bernie then Hillary. I was for someone else in 07 then they dropped out and I went to Obama.
That is democracy. That is free choice.
Until people on this forum go back to treating one another with respect we will never win again, don't you think the republicans are loving the split we have?
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Just sayin
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)That must have been really rough on you.
and the results were not surprising at all.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Sorry your candidate lost. That, also, was not surprising.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)they remind me why things are the way they are and the results were what they were.....
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)that however did not happen as we know and here we are.......
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Fortunately, Bernie doesn't cut and run... you know he'll fight against the Fuhrer-Elect's fascist agenda, alone if he has to, til the day he leaves office to assume the Presidency himself.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)He seems to be the only one out there trying to do anything at this point.
beaglelover
(3,484 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Or don't you believe in following the Constitution?
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)to fix the problem
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)tritsofme
(17,377 posts)By failing to confirm Judge Garland, the Senate has given its advice and withheld its consent.
There just isn't some secret handshake President Obama can deploy to change this reality.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)nomination a President makes???
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)that since the Senate failed to act they had abdicated their constitutional duty and that he could move forward with the appointment unilaterally.
Again, this is thoroughly debunked nonsense, but it has left many people confused about what is actually possible.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)constitutional crisis??
There's nothing to gain here and everything to lose - even if he tried to make a recess appointment in violation of the rules set forth in NLRB, it would then go to court, and the chance of it winning is almost nil. Even if he did win, the appointment would last for only a year.
Why should President Obama be expected to take this on himself, in violation of existing law, common sense, and for an ultimately futile gesture?
This was the voters' job, not the president's.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)They never voted on it.....for almost a year
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Try to think about this logically.
What you are asking would utterly change the constitutional framework.
Do you believe that if the president didn't send a nomination to Congress within a certain period of time, the Senate could just pick someone they liked and confirm that person?
As it is, this may be a very good issue for Democrats for the 2018 mid-terms. It should motivate Democrats to get out there and vote very strongly, which will be the most important thing.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)answer?
The Senate did not deny the appointment of Merrick Garland.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)None.
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)And their nominations expire if they are not acted on by the end of the session. This is not new or controversial.
The president doesn't get to arbitrarily decide he has waited long enough and move forward unilaterally. That is magical thinking.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)tritsofme
(17,377 posts)I was referring to above, it has left folks like you honestly confused about what is truly possible.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)who wants to start another nuclear arms race as president.
If you think "Getting out the vote" and picking a great candidate will get Democrats back in power you are lacking understanding and confused about what is truly possible.
We are in a whole different league now. We stay with the old way of doing things at our own peril.
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)President Obama isn't going to make appointments in this fashion because it would be unlawful and it would not stand. It's really no more complicated than that.
LisiFFXV
(36 posts)The house and senate are granted wide and far reaching power in deciding how to conduct business in their respective chambers.
If the senate wanted to, they could change the senate rules to decide the passage of bills based on a coin toss rather than votes. They could decide to consent to judicial appointments by having a senator from New York and a senator from California play a game of chess; should the senator from New York win the game, they consent. Likewise, they could decide to just do nothing and not consent to anything.
Do I wish we had gotten the SCOTUS appointment? Absolutely. But nothing will be served by misleading laypeople about how government works. One could argue that the gross ignorance and misunderstanding of even the basic functionality of government is partly why we are currently in the predicament that we are in. All of us should avoid this nonsense. I promise you, unless you at the bare minimum majored in poli sci or went to law school (I have), you probably don't even realize how ridiculous this argument is....
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)president doesn't have any authority whatsoever beyond that procedure.
The President nominates. The Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Senate MUST confirm. If the Senate rejected several nominees in a row, that would be entirely constitutional.
Try reading the constitution. It's short, snappy, has a certain narrative flow. Criticizing President Obama for not violating his oath of office is unfair and ridiculous.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)zippythepinhead
(374 posts)It is implied that they are supposed to vote on consent They have completely failed their duty and oath to uphold the conus.
They are playing a game of semantics and sophistry to avoid their constitutional duties.
I predict, "there will be blood" as a result of their dirty tricks.
Is there anywhere in the conus where it says that they don't have to vote?
at least I'll never have to see turtle mcconnell's smirking face again.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Is there anywhere in the constitution that says that they do?
zippythepinhead
(374 posts)like "you understood.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)zippythepinhead
(374 posts)As obvious as the nuclear shit storm when drump takes office.
Response to WillowTree (Reply #56)
Post removed
Response to WillowTree (Reply #9)
Post removed
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The Constitution gives him the power to nominate and the Senate to advise and consent. Thus the president picks the candidate and the Senate must consent before the Justice may be seated.
When things are so clearly stated in the Constitution, a president can't just claim that he has an executive power that the Constitution clearly states he does NOT.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Like, all over the place lately
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Constitution as a football, isn't it??
The unfairness of blaming President Obama for not attempting to be a dictator is what burns my ass.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)I'm not sure he can "appoint one with executive power". Never heard that before. Are you sure?
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)here. I am not sure. I am thinking outside the box. Maybe it can't be done but constantly just repeating that "this is the way the constitution should be interpreted" is not helpful at all
I appreciate your post though It is thoughtful
zippythepinhead
(374 posts)truly, it was a violation of "separation of powers"
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)can either sign or veto the bill, and in the case of NC, the Repubs have a super majority, and can override the governor's veto. Only the judicial branch can toss out the law against the objections of the legislative & executive branches. And trust me, what just happened in NC will surely wind up in federal court.
no_hypocrisy
(46,104 posts)If Trump gets to appoint, then the Court would have the same balance as before his death and Roe was upheld all those other times even with Scalia.
What we have to prepare for is when another Justice retires during a Trump tenure.
Maraya1969
(22,480 posts)onenote
(42,703 posts)what exactly do you think President Obama should do.
And stop and think about it for a moment. Do you really think that any qualified jurist who has the respect for the Constitution we would want in a SCOTUS justice would accept a nomination/appointment that he knew was absolutely unlawful under the Constitution?
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)Then he can use his executive orders to abolish the electoral college unilaterally, and change the second amendment to his liking. I'M SURPRISED HE DIDN'T THINK OF THESE THINGS.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Kuhl
(30 posts)moda253
(615 posts)Look there is only one way to get it accomplished and it isn't going to happen. We sat on our hands and did absolutely nothing about it. In any other democratic country something like this or what is happening in North Carolina would result in MASSIVE protests. People would be picking up the torches and pitchforks.
Here in America we piss and moan on facebook or message boards. The sad truth is that we don't care about our democracy anymore. The theft of a USSC appointment ought to be an offense against the people worthy of a real fight. Instead we barely let out a whimper.
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)A lot of people didn't know about the 2000 SCOTUS fiasco in Florida until Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 came out. That movie opened so many eyes on so many issues. I have friends who could tell me the price of electronics all over town, but they couldn't name our two state senators. I have republican family members who are totally okay with the theft of the USSC appointment. Anything to advance the GOP is okay, but if the dems did the same thing, the GOP whine would wipe out all the noise in the universe. I think the hypocrisy is what wears me down the most. The childish outrage at anything the dems do, all the while behaving worse by hundreds of degrees. And the media's "both sides do it" drivel.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I spoke to a woman the day of the election, where we discussed Hillary potentially winning the EC but losing the popular vote and she was under the belief Romney had actually won the popular vote in 2012.
The fact is, a huge chunk of America paid attention to the election for literally one day and then moved on. Anything that happened after that was lost on them.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)onenote
(42,703 posts)a blatantly unconstitutional appointment.
It's not "surrendering" -- it's following the law.
And if we don't, then we have no argument that they should. And they've got the power the next four years. If Obama can ignore the constitution and appoint someone without the consent of the Senate, what's to stop the repubs on the Senate from saying they can ignore the constitution and replace Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan?
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)and scare them. They puff their chests and get in our faces, and we file lawsuits that we win, but they just ignore anyway.
Then, when their malfeasance pays off for them, we drop talking about it and get told to 'lick our wounds' and 'hone our message'.
IT'S NOT OUR MESSAGE. IT'S THEIR CRIMINAL MALFEASANCE.
And notice I didn't even mention Russia (this time)
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)...you are proposing that the President ignore the law and do what he wants. Is this the sort of "law" you want to live under when Trump is about to be President? I'd much rather he be constrained by the law and that we not further the notion that the President can do whatever the hell he wants.