GOP Senators: No hearing, no vote for Obama Court pick

[CanonRay]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court won't get a hearing or a vote from the Republican-led Senate, GOP members of the Judiciary Committee said Tuesday as they insisted only the next president must fill the vacancy.

"No hearing, no vote," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as he emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senators-no-hearing-no-vote-for-obama-court-pick/ar-BBpRXDj?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

[houston16revival]

1. Fire them all!

They're refusing to fulfill the duties of their jobs

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats this cycle; 18 are in serious play.

Now more than ever our Democratic presidential candidates need to raise funds and tout Democrats for those seats and fire the know-nothing, do-nothing anti-Constitution fascists.

[houston16revival]

12. Amen to that

I don't dispute the GOP's right to vote no

What are they afraid of? They're avoiding responsibility, they are afraid they will be
harmed politically for voting against a qualified candidate because they know Obama
WILL pick a qualified candidate

Suppose we all just refuse to do our jobs?
Refuse to pay taxes, pay the bills, cancel everything we use or do

This is a Sit Down strike in the legislature

Outrageous

[Mira]

26. We do have a candidate

who is calling for a revolution

[BlueCaliDem]

103. How much money has he put where his mouth is?

0

[L. Coyote]

76. YES to that: " fire the know-nothing, do-nothing anti-Constitution fascists."

You said it better than I could.

[underpants]

2. 'cause Joe Biden said once.....

Apparently Joe's running their show now

[Qutzupalotl]

3. They have nothing to lose but their credibility,

...oh. Never mind.

[the zound of zilence]

167. Republicans Wanna Hang Themselves

To paraphrase the president from a 2012 debate, "Please proceed, Senators!"

[C_U_L8R]

4. Sue them.

and take it to the Supremes. I like our chances there lately.

One edit. Seriously, if the Senate refuses to provide 'advise and consent'
(in other words, refuses to do its job) then what's stopping the President
from simply making the appointment. I know, naive question on my part
but this Republican bullshit needs to end.

[Vinca]

8. That's a good idea. Force them to do their jobs.

[PatrynXX]

11. ie Kim Davis

throw them in jail for not doing their job for a week see how that sorts em out and of course use their one 1 % money to bail them out

[SharonAnn]

33. Obama could've made an appointment when the Senate was not in session. It would've angered folks,

Obama could've made an appointment when the Senate was not in session. It would've angered folks, and probably caused a backlash, but "what the heck?" The haters gonna hate.

[sharp_stick]

36. I think he'd rather fight this

The current court will be able to do some real good now that Scalia is gone and the Dems can use the current obstructionism both for the Presidential election as well as the competitive Senate races.

[Marty McGraw]

69. I believe the congress no

longer goes technically on recess but has many vacations in which they always leave a chump in DC to hold congress in session when they are all out - Empty chambers or Not

[Reter]

71. Recess appointments only last until Congress' terms end

They are not permanent. So it would have been fun until January, but that's it.

[Major Hogwash]

169. The business of the Senate wasn't suspended long enough.

It takes longer than a week to declare the Senate out of session.
A different thing entirely.

This latest time period that the Senate wasn't conducting official business was just considered a break.

It was like one team only calling a "time out" during a football game, but not the half-time period held during the middle of the game.

Hope that helps.

[GGJohn]

74. Sue the Senate for what?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate has to confirm or deny a nominee?
The President cannot just appoint an SC nominee, it would be ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat and he could possibly face impeachment.

[C_U_L8R]

79. You're right

The senate doesn't have to do a thing. And that raises a curious question of what happens with upcoming cases before the Supreme Court. Scalia's empty seat may skew things a bit in our direction. Let's hope there are some significant decisions coming up.

[GGJohn]

81. If it's a 4 to 4 tie, then the lower court ruling stands. eom.

[onenote]

85. Dead loser. Would be dismissed out of hand by a lower court and the Supreme Court wouldn't

review.

There is nothing that requires the Senate to act on a presidential nomination (just as there is nothing that requires a president to offer a nomination within in any particular time frame or, as a result, at all. There are dozens of vacancies that exist in offices that require a presidential appointment and senate confirmation. In some instances the vacancy exists because the Senate simply shelves the nomination, and in other instances its because the President makes no nomination.

This is the real world. And in the real world, this is a political issue, not a legal issue.

[C_U_L8R]

89. Thanks for the informative facts

What would you do in this situation if you were President?

[onenote]

91. What the Constitution intends: treat it as a political matter

And try to create as much political pressure on the stonewallers as possible.

[C_U_L8R]

93. Well it's certainly going to be interesting.

And good ammo for Dems at every level.

[Major Hogwash]

170. It could happen.

A lot of depends on just how long the American people are going to sit on their hands and let this sort of shit go on.

[lark]

6. Dems must fight back hard.

Once Obama submits his nominee, refuse to let ANY other legislation go through except for raising the debt ceiling. Filibuster every single one of them or if there's laws that can't be filibustered, all should vote NO. Shut down the legislature until the Repugs do their job. Run ads against the Repugs failing the country by not having the correct number of SCOTUS justices. Run ads against them politicizing the SCOTUS and failing to live up to their constitutional duty. The constitution says the legislature will review and vote on the person nominated to the SCOTUS by the president. Obama is the president, despite what the idiot Repugs want to claim.

[red dog 1]

47. + 1

I agree!

Also, run ads against the despicable Republicans for not only failing the country by not having nine Supreme Court justices, but also run ads to make sure all Americans know that President Obama wants to close down Gitmo; but the Republicans won't even allow an up or down vote on that either.

It might not result in getting those GOP pigs to either allow hearings on a new Supreme Court Justice, or to allow an up or down vote on closing Gitmo, but it would "get the word out" to the American people about what these filthy, corrupt Republicans are doing to this country, which in turn might help the Democrats take back control of both Houses of Congress this November....and, hopefully, put a democrat in the White House as well.

[Vincardog]

7. If they want president Sanders to pick the next one, I am good with that. They are however still

Despicable

[AZ Progressive]

9. "Whatcha gonna do about it, Obama?"

I can imagine them pretty much acting like schoolyard bullies.

[geomon666]

10. Unconstitutionalists

Call them what they are.

[JudyM]

30. I know how Scalia would have voted on the issue.

He'd say it would cause irreparable harm to the rethugs if they were forced to go through with the process, notwithstanding their constitutional obligations. Just like he did in Bush vs Gore. Poor shrub would have been irreparably harmed if the remaining votes were counted. Quite a new constitutional standard. Imagine that. And he was right about shrub losing the popular vote, as it turned out.

[KamaAina]

13. No vote for you!

You come back one year!

[gregcrawford]

14. Isn't there some way...

... to have these motherfuckers arrested? Isn't deliberately abusing the power of one's office to subvert the Constitution a punishable offense? Well, it should be.

[houston16revival]

18. United States Senate Oath of Office

They took an oath on the Bible to defend the Constitution and execute their office

http://www.emailyoursenator.com/oath.html

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."


So take your pick ... public perjury? Is there such a charge?

Treason?

"well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

These are strong words

[gregcrawford]

19. HA! Excellent!

Both of my senators (one is BERNIE!) are Liberals, but maybe they'll pass this along as a little reminder to their "esteemed colleagues" on the Dark Side of the aisle.

[houston16revival]

22. It should be in every state, what a campaign ad

"Senator So-and-So took an oath on the Bible etc etc

So why won't he do his job and vote on President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

We need to pillory these clowns with this

Perhaps someone should tell the DNC

[gregcrawford]

23. I'm not sure the DNC is even on our side anymore...

... But I like the idea exposing their perfidy to their constituents.

[onenote]

88. The duties of the office don't require any action on presidential nominees. Never have.

This is a political issue, not a legal one. I wish people would recognize that fact.

During every presidential administration there are dozens of vacancies in officers that require presidential appointments and senate confirmation that go unfilled, sometimes until the end of the presidential term.

[FiveGoodMen]

65. There certainly SHOULD be!

I don't know what the law says.

And even if the law is on our side, I don't know if it will be followed.

[GGJohn]

75. And just what subversion would that be?

The Senate has the option to either confirm, deny or not vote on a Presidents SC nominee.

Jeez, don't they teach civics in schools anymore?

[onenote]

90. Apparently not. Nor do folks apparently pay attention to the fact that while this is unusual

because it involves a SCOTUS nomination, the Constitution doesn't draw a distinction between a nomination to be a SCOTUS justice and a nomination to be ambassador to Lichtenstein (or, for that matter, a nomination to be Undersecretary of the Interior for god knows what). If it was a crime not appoint someone to fill a vacancy in an office required to be filled by a Presidential appointment or not to act on such a nomination, every president and every senate would have been tied up in perpetual litigation.

[gregcrawford]

111. "And just what subversion would that be?"

... Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 affords the senate the option to confirm or deny a president's nominee; it does NOT give the senate the option to deny a hearing at all. That is a direct abrogation of the oath they take when they are sworn in.

Furthermore, the excuse that McConnell and Grassley are offering, the so-called Thurmond Rule, is not a rule at all; it is nothing more than a pronouncement fabricated by that miserable old bigot, Senator Strom Thurmond, who handed out free axe handles from his hardware store so his fellow racists could attack civil rights protestors, and has no official weight whatsoever.

Grassley's position, based on that non-rule, that for the past 80 years no Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed in a presidential election year, is a bald-faced lie; both of them voted for the confirmation of Justice Kennedy in 1988, a presidential election year, and the last year of Reagan's presidency.

As for what that subversion might be, as was previously stated, senators swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, and McConnell and Grassley are subverting the Constitution by refusing to even allow a hearing.

I will resist the temptation to close with a snarky remark.

[GGJohn]

114. Again, the Senate doesn't have to take up the nomination, there is no timeline

in the Constitution, so what they're doing is in no way subversion or unconstitutional, despite what you may think.

[gregcrawford]

117. This exchange begs the question...

... Why are you working so hard to justify McConnell's blatantly partisan actions which are based on a demonstrably false premise?

[GGJohn]

118. I'm not justifying anything, I'm educating those that claim what the repugs are doing

is unconstitutional, subversion, or treason.

What McConnell is doing is asshattery at it's worse, but certainly not any of the above.

[onenote]

86. No.

[Plucketeer]

15. American people....

while we understand that you think you're paying us to do your bidding, we've decided to follow the example of senator Rubio for a work ethic. Rubio doesn't see a need to be here for votes and the rest of us on the Right are good with that. If the Supreme court is neutered for now, so what? Even when there were five CON votes the results of their determinations was not much different from what the 8-judge court can do. So just sit back and relax. Trump will choose someone we can embrace. Then you can look for us to do something - even if it's wrong.

[yellowcanine]

16. They may change their tune if they lose the Senate and a Democrat wins the Presidency.

They may want to confirm Obama's pick at that point.

[tanyev]

60. I will laugh so hard if they come begging Obama to appoint a moderate before he leaves office.

[Wednesdays]

64. Someone pointed out in another thread

That there is a brief span of time between when the new Senate is sworn in, and when the new President is sworn in. In other words, if Dems win control of the Senate, there's time for them to approve an Obama appointee...regardless of who wins the presidential election.

[SDJay]

17. Clearly, President Obama is Once Again Guilty of PWB...

Presidenting While Black. Despicable, but that's become par for the course with these asshats.

Put someone up there and force them to publicly dump all over the Constitution. Especially since these idiots are the ones always screaming about protecting the Constitution. But then again, they also shout out in public how they love them some Jesus, even though the Jesus they claim to love is the exact opposite of the one in the Bible.

[SheilaT]

20. If, once Obama actually nominates someone,

the Republicans in the Senate do refuse to hold hearings, he needs to go on television and tell the American people exactly what those clowns are doing. That would generate enough outrage, I hope, to get them to do their jobs.

And no, he can't sue them, I'm pretty sure. If he actually could, and it could go straight to the current Supreme Court (which strikes me as completely unlikely), you'd probably see a 4-4 split, given who is currently there.

No, Obama needs to make a nomination, and if they try to avoid doing there job, then make sure everyone in the country knows what's happening.

[AllyCat]

21. Then they are violating the Constitution

[Seeking Serenity]

70. "Violating the Constitution"?

How so? There's no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate do a damn thing with respect to presidential nominees.

[AllyCat]

106. Advise and consent

[Seeking Serenity]

125. The Senate, via its leadership, has essentially done the "advise" part. (eom)

[GGJohn]

77. Ummm, no, they're not.

I guess civics isn't taught in our schools anymore.

[AllyCat]

107. Oh you are a delightful conversationalist.

[GGJohn]

108. I don't know how many times it has to be said, but one more time,

the Senate, under our Constitution, can either confirm, deny or take no action on a SC nominee, in this case, they are advising the President that they are planning on taking no action until the new President is sworn in, and while it's asshattery at it's worse, it's well within their Constitutional duties.

[AllyCat]

127. So you use your "extensive" knowledge of the process to slam someone else?

Classy.

[treestar]

154. I think there could be some legal issue

about whether they can leave an office vacant. Out of mere political opposition.

[perdita9]

24. What's the difference between a GOP Senator and a spoiled brat?

Yeah, I don't know either.

[Chicago1980]

25. If people don't vote in November because of some purity test,

and or your particular candidate with a (D) currently in from of their names doesn't get the nomination and you want to stomp, pout, and stay home...

You'll doom us all.

[hobbit709]

27. Violating their oath of office.

too bad they can't be charged with something.

[Herman4747]

66. Yes, that's what they're doing.

It is one thing to vote "no" on a candidate. It is another thing to refuse to carry out the duties you took an oath to carry out.

[onenote]

92. Nope.

No duty to do squat with a nomination. The framers understood this when the wrote the Constitution. They considered and rejected a different approach - one under which Presidential nominations would take effect unless the Senate proactively voted to "veto" the nomination within a set period of time. Instead, they adopted the "Massachusetts approach" which was understood to require affirmative confirmation that could be withheld by voting down the nomination or by simply refusing to take it up.

[Herman4747]

116. So according to your logic...

If the Republican-controlled Senate were ever to choose not confirm any of a Democratic Presidential appointments, from Secretary of State to Secretary of Defense to Treasury Secretary to Supreme Court vacancies, etc., INDEED EVEN REFUSED TO PERMIT VOTING ON THE MATTER, you would blithely declare "Yes, they have no duty to do squat with a nomination."

Thankfully, you aren't a Senator or President.

[Seeking Serenity]

120. It's not "according to [onenote's] logic,"

it's according to the law. The Senate has no LEGAL duty to consent to any presidential nominee for an office. And I don't believe a court in the land, certainly not the SC, would entertain a suit demanding that the Senate "do its job," as that very likely would be seen as a "political question" inappropriate for judicial review under the separation of powers doctrine.

The Court likely would hold that such an obstreperous and recalcitrant Senate be punished at the ballot box.

[onenote]

121. Thank you.

As I've pointed out, the Constitution doesn't set a different standard for Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, cabinet officials or any of over 1000 other officers of the US that are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by the Senate.

If one really believes there is a constitutional obligation for the Senate to act on a presidential nomination, one has to believe that constitutional violations have occurred repeatedly over the nation's history since it is undeniable that not every nomination that gets made gets a hearing or a vote. And one would further have to believe that the President violates some Constitutional "requirement" if he or she does not offer nominations for every single vacant judgeship, ambassador position and presidential appointment - level cabinet or agency post (and as mentioned there are over 1000 of them) before he or she leaves office. And that's just absurd.

[Seeking Serenity]

123. I've tried explaining it, too

All upon deaf ears.

Use this as a political weapon, absolutely. But don't weaken that weapon by ignorantly and stubbornly asserting that there's some violation of law here. Because that makes the person asserting such sound ignorant.

[Herman4747]

131. Guy, I am talking NOT ABOUT THE DAMN LAW, but about duty.

Can you understand that? YES OR NO?

The Court likely would hold that such an obstreperous and recalcitrant Senate be punished at the ballot box. -- Your brilliance on display.

So we FUCKING GO 2 YEARS WITHOUT A SECRETARY OF STATE, TREASURY SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, etc. BECAUSE A "RECALCITRANT" SENATE WON'T HOLD A VOTE???

Dumbness beyond belief.

[Seeking Serenity]

133. No LEGAL duty, that's right.

There is no force that can be brought to bear on a recalcitrant Senate, other than POLITICAL pressure, to make it consider, much less consent to, any presidential nominee. There's no sheriff or law enforcement officer that can make it. And if that means going without a high Cabinet official or an Article III judge until a new Senate can be elected, then so be it. That's the system we have.

And it's ma'am, not "Guy," thank you.

[Herman4747]

135. Can you think for ONCE, just ONCE outside the legal box...

...you're stuck in? No "LEGAL" duty, you say. What about one's obligations as a conscientious employee of the federal government?
Let me help you with regards to where your reasoning can take one:
A Democratic President wins election in a future year. A Republican controlled Senate refuses to EVEN HOLD A VOTE on any of the President's nominees. Would the best you can come up with be to declare, "Yes, indeed, you are under no legal duty to hold a vote." And if the country has to go 2 years without a Secretary of State, well that's just tough shit for the country.

I do strongly hope that you are not an elected official.

[onenote]

138. I think the poster you are resopnding to is thinking outside the "legal" box

They are pointing out, quite correctly, that the failure of the Senate to confirm presidential appointees (or to hold hearings etc) is a political issue, not a legal issue.

You are the one trying to squeeze it into a non-existent legal box.

[Herman4747]

139. The poster is a single individual, not a "They"

"the failure of the Senate to confirm presidential appointees (or to hold hearings etc) is a political issue"

It's a dereliction of duty, a violation of one's oath to faithfully execute one's job tasks. Politics has nothing to do with it. The voters didn't send Senators to Washington to sit on their asses.

[onenote]

140. Actually, in the case of repub Senators, I don't know how you can say the voters did not send

them to DC to sit on their asses. I suspect that is exactly what the voters that elected repub senators wanted them to do if a Supreme Court nomination came their way.

But more to the point, you hit the nail on the head when you focused on what the voters want. If indeed the voters want the Senate to do something that it is not constitutionally required to do but expected to do, it is up to the voters to send the message by replacing the Senators that aren't carrying out the voters' will.

[Herman4747]

142. No, it isn't up to the voters...

...why should the voters have to be punished by waiting up to 2 years for important posts (like Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.) to be subjected to Senate voting on prospective nominees?
All Senators unwilling to just vote on a president's nominees should resign immediately.

[onenote]

144. Maybe they should resign. But there is no consitutional duty to resign and no constitutional way of

forcing them to do so short of finding 2/3 of the members to vote to expel them, and that's not happening.

It's a political issue. Plain and simple.

[Herman4747]

145. Just "Maybe" they should resign???

What's up with that??

You write: "It's a political issue. Plain and simple."

It should be a moral issue. Plain and simple.

If one requests from others to be granted a specific job, then after acquiring this job one should perform the job's tasks. Not sit on his ass doing nothing.

[onenote]

146. What's up with that is no matter what you or I think we have no power to force a Senator to resign

Whether I think they definitely should resign, probably should resign, or whatever is immaterial to the issue of how a situation where the Senate chooses not to act on a Presidential nomination is to be resolved under the Constitution.

I agree that one should do one's job. I don't agree that choosing not to confirm by not holding hearings or a vote is not doing one's job as dictated by the Constitution, which requires that there be advice and consent before someone can be appointed, but does not say that anything in particular needs to be done if the Senate doesn't choose to allow someone to be appointed.

[Seeking Serenity]

147. You say it should be a "moral" issue.

I and others might well agree that senators have a "moral" (or "ethical" as opposed to a "legal&quot duty to consider presidential nominees as part of the proper functioning of the government.

Question: How does one enforce a moral duty? Because, in the final analysis, that's what it comes down to in a free society, who has the authority to force one to do something, and from whence does that authority derive.

Under the separation of powers doctrine, who can force senators to act?

[Herman4747]

151. Question: How does one enforce a moral duty

You teach all children to be guided by their deeply-thought-out conscience. Then hope for the best.
That's it, in "the final analysis."

[treestar]

153. Heck it's a surprise they have confirmed anything

They would hardly care if they left everything vacant.

[erlewyne]

28. It's a game!

Obama should make his pick ... then its their turn.

Hell, if they refuse to vote ... seat Obama's pick.
No harm, no foul.

[GGJohn]

78. Unconstitutional, and Pres. Obama knows this,

you know, him being a Constitutional lawyer and all.

[erlewyne]

110. It's a game!

Mitch not doing his job is unconstitutional, and he knows it.
Where does it say it's his choice when to vote?

Let's play now! we have months and several more fragile
supreme court justices serving before this Constitutional lawyer becomes
a LAME DUCK.

[onenote]

122. If you think that any qualified Supreme Court nominee would accept being "seated" as a justice

without being confirmed, you know less about this process than I thought.

Plus, as has been explained over and over and over, it is not unconstitutional for the Senate to refuse to take action on a presidential nominee, whether that nominee is to be a SCOTUS justice, the ambassador to east bumfuck, or the undersecretary of the interior for god knows what. They're all equal in the eyes of the Constitution.

Politically, they're not equal and that's where this battle can and needs to be fought out. Not as a legal matter or by unrealistic ideas like expecting a qualified justice to accept a position without confirmation (or a valid recess appointment, which is off the table too).

[barbtries]

29. fucking idiots

i hope this bullshit boomerangs on them so hard they all end up out of a job.

[Orrex]

31. So after President Sanders or President Clinton is sworn in...

Does the current Senate think that they'll retain the majority and delay for another 8 years?

[getagrip_already]

40. depends on the fillibuster...

they can delay 8/16/72 years if they have to. Unless the dems get the wh and senate, and are willing to suspend the fillibuster before the republicans get the same chance, there won't be any nominees approved.

We could be down to no justices before either of those happen.

[Reter]

73. 8 years?

Getting ahead of yourself, aren't you?

[Arkana]

32. Keep digging, fellas.

This, btw, is exactly what Obama WANTS you to do.

[lakercub]

34. These commercials should write themselves in contested senate states

"Our senator refuses to do his Constitutional job.
Our senator is scared Citizens United will be overturned.
Our senator is bought and paid for.

Why is he/she our senator?

Vote _________ and get a senator who does his/her job.
Vote _________ and work to get Citizens United overturned."
Vote _________ and get a senator who will work to appoint judges not ruled by money

Every single Dem candidate should pound this recalcitrance into the ground. Voters should be reminded at every possible opportunity that this is all about the money and that Citizens United is what's at stake. Give no quarter, pound the Republicans with Citizens United and the horrible court decision that enabled it for the rest of the campaign.

And, if that gets Dems elected and we get the Senate back they damn sure better get legislation going that will overturn that travesty and get judges on the bench who respect the rule of law, not the rule of cash. First 100 days...Do everything possible to get rid of Citizens United.

[Beowulf]

59. I like this strategy.

But would it work with a candidate at the top of the ticket who is also bought and paid for?

[tapermaker]

35. Best news i have heard today

This will most likely loose the senate for them. once they seat the new congress on the 3rd President Obama has 17 days to push through his selection before leaving office on the 20thof January.The senate has already nuked the filibuster for other judges ,they only need to add the supreme court to the list , and who would blame them after a yr. of obstruction on his nominee.

[aintitfunny]

37. I voted for Barack Obama, they are violating my

rights in refusing to do their job.

Koch suckers, all of them.

[Matthew28]

53. The republican party only believes in their sucking extremist politics.

They'll scream to high hell and back about the constitution when it comes to helping the little guy, but we'll do crap like this to push their extremist trash.

[Flying Squirrel]

61. That sounds like a lawsuit. nt

[GGJohn]

80. A lawsuit?

For what?

[Flying Squirrel]

82. We voted for Obama with the intent for him to nominate SC justices

So if they prevent that, they're violating our constitutional rights. It's a class action lawsuit.

[GGJohn]

84. You do realize the Senate can, under the Constitution,

either confirm, deny or take no action on a SC nominee?
They are NOT violating any constitutional rights and there is no grounds for a lawsuit, as Pres. Obama, who is a Constitutional lawyer, well know.

Isn't civics taught in our schools anymore?

[Flying Squirrel]

97. RKBA is your favorite group? Imagine that.

Bye now

[GGJohn]

99. And that proves what Mr. Squirel?

I notice you failed to refute my facts, very interesting.

[getagrip_already]

38. in a surprise to absolutely nobody...

if you have been paying even a little attention, this move is no surprise. no soup for you.

[blackspade]

39. Ah, so they are refusing to do their jobs under the Constitution.

Classy.

Maybe they should resign and let someone who will actually work for a change to go to DC.

[GGJohn]

83. Umm, no, they're not,

under the Constitution, the Senate can confirm, deny or take no action on a SC nominee.
There is no timeline in the Constitution for the Senate to consider a nominee.

It's asshattery at it's worse, but certainly not unconstitutional.

[blackspade]

102. Actually the Senate advises and consents.

So "take no action" is not one of their options.
Now, I agree that they can drag the process out, but they constitutionally have to make some action.

[GGJohn]

104. What action do they HAVE to take?

They don't, they can refuse, constitutionally, to take any action on his nominee.

[blackspade]

112. Well, that's the wing nut interpretation.

[GGJohn]

113. So, several other DU'er's who have said the same exact thing are also wing nuts? eom.

[blackspade]

119. No, They are using wing nut framing of the issue...

Which is exactly the message that the M$M is pushing because heaven forbid if we have the 'scary black Muslim socialist ninja gangster' do what he was elected to do...twice.
If the DNC doesn't use this the hammer the Repubs, then it, as an organization, is more fucked up that I already think it is.

[onenote]

124. There are numerous vacancies among presidentially appointed positions today

ambassadorships, subcabinet level positions, agency positions. In the eyes of the Constitution they are all the same. So do you really think the President has acted unconstitutionally by not nominating someone to fill all these positions? Do you really think every Senate that has failed to take action on all of the nominations that might have been made to fill any of the 1000 plus positions requiring Senate confirmation have acted unconstitutionally? Because every Senate -- whether controlled by the Democrats or the repubs, puts some nominations on the shelf and doesn't act on them.

That's not RW framing -- it's fundamental Constitutional law.

[blackspade]

128. so you say....

[onenote]

129. If you have a counter argument based on the text and history of the Constitution

I'd be interested in hearing it.

I should note that in 40 years of legal practice, I've never encountered a litigant that succeeded with an argument of "so you say"

[blackspade]

136. I already outlined my argument. If you don't like it, that's on you.

My opinion is that the Senate should give the President's nominees a fair hearing (advise) and a vote (consent) based on the text of the Constitution.

I should note that this is a message board not a court of law.

[onenote]

137. It's not a court of law

But if you're going to make a legal argument you might try to find something in the text and history of the law to support it.

I pose my question to you again: under your interpretation of the Constitutional language (1) is the President under a Constitutional obligation to put forward before leaving office a nominee for every vacant judgeship, ambassadorship, cabinet and subcabinet post, independent agency and other position that requires a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation? (2) Has any President ever met that standard? (3) Is the Senate required to hold a hearing and vote on every nomination for every presidentially appointed position (all 1000 plus of them)? (4) How many times do you think a presidential nomination has been put on the shelf and not been the subject of a hearing and/or a vote?

[blackspade]

148. I gave you my opinion.

If you don't like it, tough shit.

[onenote]

150. And that's a wonderful defense of your legal interpretation

The repubs might have room for your kind of legal analysis on the courts.

Your "opinion" on a legal question, without any support in text of the Constitution as read in the context of its very very long history makes your "opinion" on this the equivalent of a small child's "opinion" about an algebra question.

[blackspade]

159. Whatever dude.

Take your childish bullying elsewhere.

[GGJohn]

160. Childish bullying?

You get your ass handed to you on a silver platter and this is the best you can come up with for a reply?

[blackspade]

161. Never to late for a pile on, 'eh?

As for the silver platter, my opinion is unchanged, because there has not been an effective argument against it.
But if you and onenote can't handle that, well, sad day for you.

[GGJohn]

162. Wrong, you just refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect so you resort to insults

because that's all you have left when your opinion is thoroughly destroyed by facts.

Oh, and the reason it took so long for me to reply, we own and run a small farm, we have livestock to tend to and other farm chores, so DU isn't my main reason for being.

Have a great night.

[blackspade]

163. I plan on having a great night! Thanks!

Alright.

Let me get this straight; Your telling me that my position, that the Repubs are acting in an unconstitutional manner by refusing to even do the advising part of their constitutional duty, is wrong because of these facts:

There are numerous vacancies among presidentially appointed positions today ambassadorships, subcabinet level positions, agency positions. In the eyes of the Constitution they are all the same. So do you really think the President has acted unconstitutionally by not nominating someone to fill all these positions? Do you really think every Senate that has failed to take action on all of the nominations that might have been made to fill any of the 1000 plus positions requiring Senate confirmation have acted unconstitutionally? Because every Senate -- whether controlled by the Democrats or the repubs, puts some nominations on the shelf and doesn't act on them.

Are you all trying to say that because I think that the Senate leadership is acting unconstitutionally, I think that Obama is?
Why would you make that point in that way? Has Obama refused to nominate open positions? If so why is that?
Onenote could have presented the argument in a completely different way, like; "Many presidents including Obama and the current and former Senate sessions have declined both the nominating and advise and consent clause for political reasons, so that angle is not a winning strategy for the SCOTUS nomination fight."
Simple, informative, and to the point.
Instead, the framing of my opinion gets turned around as an attack on Obama. Due to their 'credentials' of being a lawyer, and an expert on the use of language in litigation, I'll assume that the response to me was parsed in that way for a reason, to get me to indirectly attack Obama.
Why that would be, I have no idea.

I would have thought that since we are all on the President's side on this, there would be a informative, strategic discussion of possible ways to resolve the SCOTUS issue before Obama leaves office. And also provide much needed political ammunition for the retaking of the Senate in the coming election.

But I can see that there is something else going on here that would make you all so aggressive towards me.
Whatever it is, it's on you guys.

On a side note, I hope that your farm is doing well. Having grown up on a farm, I know how difficult and rewarding it can be!

[GGJohn]

164. You misunderstand as far as the President,

I don't believe that Pres. Obama is acting unconstitutional, quite the opposite, he's taking the fight to the repukes by making this a political issue, not a legal one.

The point I and others here are making is that the Senate isn't doing anything unconstitutional, it's asshattery at it's worse, but not unconstitutional, and it will cost them in Nov.

Thank you for the kind words, you're correct, it is difficult and rewarding.
We did lose 2 calves the other night to a mountain lion, my take is that they have to eat also, unfortunately it cost us 2 of our animals, but that's the cost of running a farm.

[mountain grammy]

41. Ok, now I have hate in my heart...

I hate these motherfuckers.

[Milliesmom]

42. Please sign the Petition

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-senate-advise


Tell them to do their job. This is what the political Revolution is all about, people rising up and saying, "do your job or we will vote you out of office " , and then turning out to vote, don't complain if you stand by and wait for others to do it.

[red dog 1]

49. Done!

Thanks for the link.

We should ALL sign this petition!

[Arazi]

55. Done and thank you for posting this

[Delphinus]

43. This is absolute

bullshit!

[n2doc]

44. fuckers n/t

[Dustlawyer]

45. As an "Originalist," Scalia would tell them they have to follow the Constitution and vote on Obama's

appointment. The irony is so thick you have to cut it with a chain saw!

[onenote]

94. And where in the Constitution does it say that?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Geez, this has been explained over and over.

[Dustlawyer]

98. Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Appointment clause.

[GGJohn]

100. And just where in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

is there a time line to either confirm or deny?
Oh wait, it doesn't.
The fact is that, under the Constitution, the Senate can either confirm, deny or take no action on the Presidents SC nominee.

[onenote]

101. I'll try once again: this is all a matter of historical record

The framers considered an approach to presidential appointments under which the Senate would have to act to "veto" the appointment within a set time frame or the appointment would be deemed confirmed. Instead, the framers decided to follow what was known as the "Massachusetts approach" under which a Presidential appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate to become effective and there is no requirement as to how the Senate proceeds in not granting such confirmation -- it can be by voting on the nomination or simply refusing to do so.

Since you have your copy of the Constitution handy, you might want to take note of the fact that it draws no distinction between the process by which Supreme Court nominations are treated and nominations for ambassadorships or other officers of the United States (of which there currently are well over 1000 that require presidential appointment and confirmation).

As you can well imagine, while it is unique for a Supreme Court nomination to be stonewalled, it is not at all uncommon for vacancies to exist during and at the end of presidential terms in officers that require presidential appointment and senate confirmation, sometimes because no one is nominated to fill the vacancy and sometimes because the Senate puts the nomination on the shelf.

The answer is, as the framers obviously intended, through the political process. Indeed, the only recourse to compel the initial creation of the Supreme Court and lower courts was through the political process, not the legal process (since exactly what court would hear the case challenging the failure to set up the Court (including designating the number of Justices?)

[treestar]

155. They have to vote on the nominee

They could reject nominee after nominee on specious grounds maybe. But where does it say they can pull this move? They have the power to leave offices vacant? This would set precedent they would do it all the time.

[Seeking Serenity]

158. "They have to vote on the nominee"

No, in fact, they don't. And the only entity they would be accountable to is their electorate. Political pressure. It might set a precedent, as you say. It would have to be up to the voters whether they want their government to operate this way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Aux Armes, Citoyenes!

It’s hard usually, as readers of this blog know, to cut through the noise of political blather and the insistent demands of daily life. But this is one of those moments when stakes and character become clear — enough, I deeply hope, to move the dial in November. Most simply, if there were any enthusiasm gap between the parties, it’s going, going, gone now.

We have two jobs: for one, elect the Democrat, whoever that may be, to the Presidency. I’m more a Hillary person than a Bernie one, but I’ll pound the hills of New Hampshire for either one this coming fall, every damn chance I get.

The other: these embarrassments as Senators must go: Kirk, Johnson, Toomey, Portman, Ayotte. The Florida open seat, and as distant hopes, McCain and Burr too. I’ll be up in New Hampshire (as I may have mentioned a sentence or two ago), pounding the hills for Governor Hassan, every damn chance I get. If you can get to a race that’s in the balance, do so. If you can’t, do whatever else you can.

One last thought: I didn’t think that anything the GOP could do — especially an act as predictable as this — would do more than deepen my weary sense of “they are who we thought they were.” But this feels like a last straw. I’m just done with allowing any framing of this as “just politics” or what have you. I and a majority of my fellow citizens voted President Obama into office twice. The disrespect to him is something he can handle (better than I ever would). But it’s the delegitimizing of my vote, my choice, my place in American democracy that has just gotta stop. The current Republican Party has to be destroyed, root and branch. They are blight on policy, and a boil on the body politic. Time for them to go.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/23/aux-armes-citoyenes/

[3catwoman3]

48. I would like to grab Mitch McConnell by his ugly...

...turtle neck and squeeze him 'til he starts to turn blue and begs for mercy.

I have been angry at the Repubican'ts many times, for many reasons, during the years of Barack Obama's presidency. This latest bullshit is beyond infuriating.

As has been observed in other threads, since Scalia's death, McConnell's rationale of wanting the "American people" to have a say in this is so much garbage - we had our say when we re-elected President Obama in 2012. He must think everyone is as stupid as his own constituents who keep voting for him. He knows good and damn well that if there were a Republican't in the White House, even if there were only 3 weeks left of the term, he would be all over that president being able to make an appointment, and they would approve the nominee overnight.

Scheming obstructionist POS!

[forest444]

68. This might do even better:

Prosecuting him and his narco in-laws for this; http://www.thenation.com/article/mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company/

And while we're at it, shine a little sunlight on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rogers/what-is-mitch-mcconnell-h_b_137083.html

(oh, myyy!)

[valerief]

50. There oughta be a law.

[FairWinds]

51. Based on his record, I predict that . .

Obama will cave on this.

He has never really challenged the GOP for their sabotage, and they
have paid zero political cost for it.

I hope I'm wrong.

[rockfordfile]

149. I hope he stands up to them

[red dog 1]

52. Bitching about this here does no good at all

We ALL need to sign the petition, and get others to sign it as well
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-senate-advise

[0rganism]

54. let them shirk, Obama can just nominate a candidate every week

he can nominate highly qualified minority judges & lawyers from swing states.
then, every week, he can have a press conference discussing the qualifications of the person to whom the Senate refused their services, complete with a nice big picture, and then he can talk up the next nominee.

betcha after the 3rd or 4th hispanic nominee from Wisconsin or Ohio or Virginia, some cracks & holes appear in their obstinate stonewall.

[turbinetree]

56. Hey McConnell (Turtle lips) ..........., do you fully understand what you did, when you did this ...

Now eat your words..........................


It did not say obstruct in those words and it does not say that anywhere in the nomination process of a sitting president, all you can do is advise and consent-------------------end of story or Constitution.



And just for giggles you have 8 right wing senators in your party that are going to voted out of office this coming November------------------and this litmus test on your obstruction in now on there plate------------------yippie

If I was president I would sue your right wing hypocrite butt along with your other partners in crime when you did this,

for, this is treason bucko---------------plain and simple, conspiracy is conspiracy, no matter how Newt tries to slice and dice it in the interview, and let's not forget who was in this Caucus Room

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27297-democrats-duped-by-the-caucus-room-conspiracy

Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

It is about getting a Progressive President , U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and State and Local legislatures

[Lodestar]

57. Time to resurrect the OCCUPY movement!! This is blasphemy!!! n/t

[ananda]

58. Well, that does cinch the Senate for the Dems!

..

[mwooldri]

62. Then the Senate had better not go into recess. Ever.

Who's up for a recess appointment or two?

[onenote]

96. They haven't for a long time and probably won't so long as the WH and Senate

are controlled by different parties.

[Wednesdays]

63. Guess they've never heard the phrase, "When you're in a hole..."

[The Second Stone]

67. Rent a hall, hold hearings, allow only

Senators who agree to hold a real hearing to ask questions.

[Seeking Serenity]

72. To what end? (eom)

[GGJohn]

87. And that would accomplish what?

[onenote]

95. No one qualified to be SCOTUS justice would agree to participate.

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

They're generally very bright people who understand the law.

[The Second Stone]

105. It would not require the nominee to speak

that is a rather recent thing that should be abolished. Just a public forum that has Senators holding a non-Senate forum so that they can discuss the need for filling the vacancy, the qualifications needed, and whether the candidate has them.

[benh57]

109. He should have recess appointed

The timing was unfortunately bad. Obama could have recess appointed a justice until midnight on the 22nd. Now they probably won't give him a chance again.

[onenote]

115. There was no opportunity to make a recess appointment

Do the math.

The Supreme Court has said that a recess of less than ten days is presumptively not long enough to allow for a recess appointment. The Senate was in session on the 12th and adjourned. It was out of session on the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st. It came back into session on the 22nd. Number of days not in session: nine. Plus, the Supreme Court acknowledged that for purposes of the Adjournments Clause, which is what they relied on in interpreting the recess clause, Sundays do not count as "days". So in fact, the "recess" was only seven days.

The repubs may be a lot of things, but ignorant of Senate procedures isn't one of them. They have been steadfast in ensuring there isn't a window for recess appointments for some time now -- completely unrelated to the Scalia vacancy.

[benh57]

165. Folks disagree

According to the opinion i heard on NPR, this is incorrect. It was a 10 day recess.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-williams/supreme-court-recess-appointment_b_9238856.html

But i'm sure it would have gone to court anyway... the tied court. Imagine the chaos!

[onenote]

166. And that is one of the most incomplete analyses I've seen

For example, the author apparently concedes that a pro forma session breaks up a recess. Yet he thinks a day in which the Senate was in session is a recess day. A day is a day -- the 24 hour period running from 12:01 am to midnight, not a period of 24 hours that overlaps two calendar days. And the discussion of not counting Sundays in the Canning case? Nowhere to be found in the author's analysis.

Also, there would have been no chaos in it going to court. For one thing it would take a long time to get to the Supreme Court. Second, the Canning decision was 9-0, so the idea that it would suddenly become a 4-4 split is pretty ridiculous.

Finally, I can't say I'm surprised at Victor Williams incomplete and boneheaded analysis of the recess appointment clause. After all he filed a brief in the Cannning case and ended up having the Court unanimously reject his position. Some people never learn.

[randys1]

126. So this is what, constitutional crisis? When do Americans blame those responsible for

malfeasance in office?

Dems would NEVER do this, but if they did I think the GOP would consider it a civil war.

[onenote]

130. Depends on how you define a Constitutional crisis

If parties not acting in a way that is expected, but not required, under the Constitution creates a Constitutional crisis, then yes.

But it's a bit early to say that this is a full-blown Constitutional crisis.

[randys1]

132. They are required to do their fucking job that they would be doing if the prez wasnt Black

Good god damn thing the roles arent reversed, if the Dems did this the GOP would literally declare a civil war over it.

GOP is refusing to abide by the Constitution.

[onenote]

134. As has been explained more times than can be counted, the Senate's "job"

in the case of a presidential nomination (whether to the Supreme Court or to Ambassador to Eritrea or to be undersecretary of the interior for god knows what) is to confirm or not confirm. Not confirming can be done anyway the Senate wants - by voting or by simply never voting.

That's it. That's all the Constitution requires. All the Constitution has ever required. And the historical record of the framers' deliberations over the appointments clause backs this up.

The fact that the Senate is doing this for political/racial reasons is irrelevant. Their reasons for doing things are not subject to Constitutional scrutiny. They are, however, subject to political scrutiny, which is what can and should happen.

[randys1]

141. Bullshit...the prez APPOINTS, first of all...and when the senate says they wont even take

a meeting with the APPOINTMENT, they are saying they no longer recognize the constitution or the will of the people

If the dems did this the right would start a war

goodbye

this is racism and anti American just like when they refused, for the FIRST TIME EVER to even hold a hearing on his budget

[onenote]

143. Democrats through history have frequently failed to take action on presidential nominees for

lower courts, ambassadors, subcabinet officials, and any number of the 1000 plus officers of the US whose appointment requires Senate confirmation to become effective. You're hopelessly naïve or uninformed to think otherwise.

Today the President has not even nominated folks to fill a number of these positions -- positions that are not distinguished in the Constitution from Supreme Court vacancies. If you don't believe me I suggest that you read the appointments clause of the Constitution. You'll note that Supreme Court justices are lumped in with all sorts of other presidentially appointed positions.

[treestar]

156. +1 I bet this has never happened before

They are scumbags.

[onenote]

157. Maybe not exactly, but pretty close

Particularly in the 19th Century, there were several instances of Supreme Court justices being nominated, the nomination referred to the Judiciary Committee and no further action on the nomination. Typically, at some point, the president withdrew the nomination. There is at least one instance, I believe, of a nomination being withdrawn even before it was referred to Committee because of opposition. There also are a number of instances in which nominations never received an "up or down" vote because proceeding on the nomination was blocked procedurally or by the mechanism of a motion to postpone consideration or table the nomination. In these instances, the nominee was not actually rejected, but the effect was the same and the President typically withdrew the nomination rather than wait for the confirmation vote that was never going to come.

A good summary can be found here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

By the way, none of this makes the repubs any less scumbags for doing what they're doing.

I also should add that from a purely Constitutional standpoint, Supreme Court nominations are no different than any other nomination for a position that requires a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. And while I don't have any statistics, there have been quite a few instances over the years in which such nominations -- for ambassadors, cabinet/subcabinet positions, agency positions, etc (there are over 1000 positions that are filled by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation) have been put on the shelf and never given a hearing or otherwise acted upon.

[treestar]

152. this makes me so angry

it would be one thing for them to block a candidate, but to refuse to hold hearings at all and announce that before the candidate is announced? They are blatant. They just want to stop the POTUS. And has this ever happened to any POTUS before?

[Major Hogwash]

171. Seems to me that Cornel West was right when he said that the Republicans in Congress have . . .

. . . niggardized President Obama.

All those white Republican Senators in Congress today have treated President Obama like he isn't the President!
They even drafted a letter to the President of Iran and told him that they might not hold to the terms of a nuclear arms deal in the future, if the President of Iran agreed to one with this President!!

WTF, over?!?

[Major Hogwash]

168. We must protest at the Supreme Court Building until the Republicans hold a hearing for Obama's . . .

. . . Supreme Court nominee.

Alà the Occupy movement, do it the same way now that they did it several years ago in that park in New York.
Just camp out in front of the Supreme Court building until the Republicans give in.
The mainstream media would have to report on such a sit-in protest eventually.

I think we need to protest this latest example of obstruction by the Republican Senators in a big way.
In a very big way.
We should demand that the Republican Senators perform their damned jobs by protesting the same way the students in the 60s protested against the damn Vietnam War!!
Just organize a long-term sit-in, and stay there until President Obama's nominee has a hearing.

It makes me wonder where the youth of today are on this sort of cockamamie GOP crap?
Why aren't they protesting in the streets over their Constitutional rights being violated the same way the kids that made up the 60's generation did?

The Senate has to hold a hearing.
Even Republican citizens want them to hold a hearing.
They want their Senators to vote down any liberal nominee, but they expect them to do their damn jobs!

They are sick and tired of the broken federal government.
They don't want this sort of shenanigans to take place in Washington any more than the citizens that are Democrats.