General Discussion

WillowTree

(5,350 posts)

81. Once more time, there is no provision in the Constitution or any law........

Wed Jun 27, 2018, 03:15 PM

Jun 2018

.......that requires the Senate to hold hearings for judicial appointments. You're trying to ascribe a requirement to hold hearings that simply isn't there. The only requirement is that a nominee must receive Senate approval before she or he can take the bench to which she or he was nominated. Precedent doesn't (you'll pardon the expression) trump the actual requirements (or lack thereof) in the Constitution. If the senate declines to hold hearings or give approval, the nomination dies there.

Which is what happened.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Impeach Gorsuch! [View all] TomCADem Jun 2018 OP

He's illegitimate because Obama's nominee wasn't given a hearing or turned down. shraby Jun 2018 #1

Which was only unethical and slimy but not illegal Amishman Jun 2018 #47

True, illegitimate is not the same as illegal. But impeachment is a political process, not legal. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #64

Judges serve on good behavior. malthaussen Jun 2018 #2

If they wouldn't take Scalia down for being so crooked and compromised, then I can't imagine Baitball Blogger Jun 2018 #5

No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from office following impeachment. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #3

yeah, unethical and slimy. mcturtle could have done it rather less so. unblock Jun 2018 #8

Think of what it will do to him just to go through the process of impeachment. Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #13

You can't impeach a judge because you don't like his decisions. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #14

Then impeach him because he is illegitimate. If we don't do something then every time Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #18

Again, the fact that somebody else got him appointed isn't an impeachable offense The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #20

The theory would be somewhat similar to the legal concept Danascot Jun 2018 #60

This is what I can't stand about Democrats. If we were in control of the house with a Repub Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #82

What McConnell did wasn't illegal or against the Senate's rules The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #85

THIS............. Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #83

No Senate Has Simply Refused to Hold a Confirmation Vote TomCADem Jun 2018 #40

impeaching him is certainly a power available to congress. unblock Jun 2018 #4

He didn't actually do anything illegal, so it would be a tough sell. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #6

the question is really moot anyway, we're not getting anything close to 2/3rds of the senate. unblock Jun 2018 #9

Court packing didn't work out well for FDR, so that might not be a solution either. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #10

considering our present circumstance, i'd settle unblock Jun 2018 #12

Actually, in a way it did work: shanny Jun 2018 #21

Appointing two extra judges would take a law change Amishman Jun 2018 #50

right, as i said. it would require a democratic president and a majority in each house of congress. unblock Jun 2018 #54

"Permissibile" isn't the issue FBaggins Jun 2018 #7

Then Get Out and Vote TomCADem Jun 2018 #17

That's nice FBaggins Jun 2018 #56

At the end of the day, that is why we are in the current predicament TomCADem Jun 2018 #58

Or sue to have him replaced by Obama's choice. Squinch Jun 2018 #11

Explain how that's going to work, and who should be sued. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #15

And, I would add, in what court? Who would hear the case? shanny Jun 2018 #23

He could be sued obnoxiousdrunk Jun 2018 #51

Which Article of the Constitution provides for that? WillowTree Jun 2018 #22

Which article provides for McConnell refusing to have a hearing on Garland? Squinch Jun 2018 #25

what about...? shanny Jun 2018 #26

What about what? Squinch Jun 2018 #29

ism shanny Jun 2018 #30

No. It is directly related to the appointment of Gorsuch. If McConnell had the hearings on Garland Squinch Jun 2018 #38

How do you know Garland would have been confirmed. onenote Jun 2018 #65

We never will know, will we? Squinch Jun 2018 #68

No. But a betting person would probably go with "not confirmed" onenote Jun 2018 #70

Then a more right leaning person might have been put forward. But not a lunatic like Gorsuch. Squinch Jun 2018 #72

And why wouldn't that nominee have been rejected by the repubs, too? onenote Jun 2018 #74

So if there is a Democratic president and a republican Senate, we should just not put Squinch Jun 2018 #75

Not sure how you leap from what I wrote to that conclusion. onenote Jun 2018 #79

I'm not even sure he would get all of the Democrats to support him FBaggins Jun 2018 #73

Article I, section 5: The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #32

OK, so as soon as we get the Senate back, there should be a determination that the appointment of Squinch Jun 2018 #39

Oh for goodness sake.......Which Article of the Constitution provides for THAT? WillowTree Jun 2018 #43

Apparently Article 1 Section 5 as quoted in the post I was replying to. Squinch Jun 2018 #45

You're reading things into the Constitution which you want to be there.......but aren't. WillowTree Jun 2018 #48

Everybody does. Squinch Jun 2018 #49

Not really. onenote Jun 2018 #69

Is your right to privacy a real right? Its nowhere in the Constitution, yet we have laws that Squinch Jun 2018 #71

You're not finding things that aren't in the Constitution. You're ignoring things that are in onenote Jun 2018 #77

What if the Senate decides that those rules can be applied retroactively if precedent was ignored? Squinch Jun 2018 #78

Your response to McConnell making up his own rules is to make up your own mythology Jun 2018 #61

Why not? Why can't we say that the jettisoning of centuries of precedent was not legitimate? Squinch Jun 2018 #62

No provision of the constitution requires them to vote. It requires "consent" PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #33

Two can play this game...... WillowTree Jun 2018 #42

Well, so essentially you are agreeing with me. There are no articles that say such a thing. Squinch Jun 2018 #44

Because there's no force of law behind what you're proposing. WillowTree Jun 2018 #52

There was no force of law behind McConnell refusing to have a hearing on Garland. But he did it. Squinch Jun 2018 #53

Once more time, there is no provision in the Constitution or any law........ WillowTree Jun 2018 #81

Sigh... let's try it this way. FBaggins Jun 2018 #59

Obama's choice would still need to be confirmed by the Senate Locutusofborg Jun 2018 #66

Should we impeach and FAIL TO CONVICT Gorsuch... brooklynite Jun 2018 #16

Details............Details................... WillowTree Jun 2018 #24

Get 2/3 majority of the Senate TomCADem Jun 2018 #34

Fun fact: if we won EVERY SENATE SEAT up this term, we wouldn't have 2/3 of the Senate. brooklynite Jun 2018 #46

Did you mean to say "wouldn't" instead of "would"? onenote Jun 2018 #63

Yes, my mistake brooklynite Jun 2018 #67

I'm in favor of increasing the size of the Court to 13 shanny Jun 2018 #19

hes illigitimate anyway and hes tainted with russian stink! samnsara Jun 2018 #27

Stronger case to impeach Thomas, IMO. Tatiana Jun 2018 #28

Gorsuch Holds the Stolen Seat TomCADem Jun 2018 #31

He could have been impeached for his filing of false financial disclosure forms... PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #35

Yes, there is a lot of dirt there. Tatiana Jun 2018 #41

He is fundamentally tainted. Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #36

Thomas first bigtree Jun 2018 #37

This is wishful thinking vlyons Jun 2018 #55

Which 18 Republican Senators would vote guilty? Locutusofborg Jun 2018 #57

It's possible but not until democrats have 67 senate seats beachbum bob Jun 2018 #76

Increase the number of SC justices. We need to win the presidency and congress overwhelmingly. Lucky Luciano Jun 2018 #80

Sounds good to me. Captain Stern Jun 2018 #84