General Discussion

no_hypocrisy

(54,903 posts)

25. I searched online and could find petitions but very few decisions.

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:40 AM

Mar 2016

My proposal is on the novel side admittedly. The Writ of Mandamus would be the proper cause of action. The question would be who h as the standing to go to court with it: Garland, a member of the Senate, a mere taxpayer?

You raise valid issues which I unfortunately cannot answer, only speculate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can POTUS Sue Congress when they clearly neglect their duties? [View all] GusFring Mar 2016 OP

They do not have a duty to vote on Garland jberryhill Mar 2016 #1

Biden seemed to suggest they do. GusFring Mar 2016 #3

Tough jberryhill Mar 2016 #6

Then they need to vote that way Warpy Mar 2016 #8

In my book, that's called treason. desmiller Mar 2016 #10

Your book is wrong. Doctor Who Mar 2016 #14

Using powers to undermine and disrespect the POTUS is treason to me. desmiller Mar 2016 #15

Disrespecting the POTUS is treason? Doctor Who Mar 2016 #46

You are entitled to your opinion, but the law is what matters. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #19

No law can stop Karma. Those GOP pricks will get their's in due time. desmiller Mar 2016 #22

Elections. That they fear. n/t Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #23

Yes. desmiller Mar 2016 #24

If only it were so -- due time for the GOP was more than 20 years ago cloudythescribbler Mar 2016 #77

The Constitution prescribes no mechanism for "advice and consent" jberryhill Mar 2016 #13

They are neither advising nor consenting. They are fraudulently collecting paychecks lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #28

In the Court of Imagination, anything is possible jberryhill Mar 2016 #30

Thank you, nice to be loved lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #32

Well, all those lawyers filing lawsuits on this must have another view of it jberryhill Mar 2016 #35

"nor consenting" pintobean Mar 2016 #31

NEWSFLASH: The Constitution requires that there be a Supreme Court. tabasco Mar 2016 #33

NEWSFLASH: There is one jberryhill Mar 2016 #34

NEWSFLASH: There would not be one but for senate action that is REQUIRED under the constitution tabasco Mar 2016 #37

"in your la-la land contrarian world" jberryhill Mar 2016 #38

This message was self-deleted by its author X_Digger Mar 2016 #50

Did someone misplace the SCOTUS? Should we have their pictures printed on milk cartons? X_Digger Mar 2016 #51

There actually was a two year period when there was no Supreme Court onenote Mar 2016 #74

So do you think that the Senate is obligated to approve anyone the President nominate? onenote Mar 2016 #81

Back when a Democratic Senate was refusing to vote on Bush appointees, Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #18

No beachbumbob Mar 2016 #2

No. They are not harming Obama's Executive powers. They are just now giving that up or down vote Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #4

No SCantiGOP Mar 2016 #5

this is a political problem, not a legal or constitutional one. unblock Mar 2016 #7

Writ of Mandamus no_hypocrisy Mar 2016 #9

Are you suggesting that a writ of mandamus would be a possibility? WillowTree Mar 2016 #16

Who was the plaintiff for Marbury v. Madison? no_hypocrisy Mar 2016 #17

So his petition can be denied as was Marbury's? WillowTree Mar 2016 #21

I searched online and could find petitions but very few decisions. no_hypocrisy Mar 2016 #25

The senate had confirmed his nomination though. NYC Liberal Mar 2016 #49

That doesn't apply to a legislative body jberryhill Mar 2016 #36

You assume the courts would find for the President in this matter. PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #11

The court is now deadlocked; the GOP can't expect relief there lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #29

It's up to us C_U_L8R Mar 2016 #12

Straightforwardly - he'd be stupid to do so, and he is not stupid. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #20

In this case, the President doesn't need to sue Congress. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #26

Advice and consent is not a privilege SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #48

What specifically in the Constitutiion supports your claim that advice and consent Trust Buster Mar 2016 #57

The text of the Constitution itself SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2016 #86

The Democrats can do the same using that logic. Then the Court will begin to unravel. Trust Buster Apr 2016 #87

Sure the Democrats can do the same thing SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2016 #88

I think you need a refresher in civics. The president only nominates. X_Digger Mar 2016 #53

Where can you support your claim in the Constitution ? Trust Buster Mar 2016 #56

Hell, the constitution doesn't even define the number of justices. X_Digger Mar 2016 #58

Where in the Constitutiion does it claim that consent is mandatory ? Trust Buster Mar 2016 #60

Are you shitting me? You don't even know the language? Back to Civics 101 with you. X_Digger Mar 2016 #61

I know that but the Senate has abstained from advice and consent. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #62

The senate has withheld it's consent, you say? So it does not consent? X_Digger Mar 2016 #63

I disagree. They never even started the advise and consent process. They suspended the Trust Buster Mar 2016 #64

Okay, I *do* need to send you a dictionary. X_Digger Mar 2016 #65

So the Democrats decide that they will do the same to future Republican presidents. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #66

Do you consent? *silence*.. that's lack of consent. Fucking duh. X_Digger Mar 2016 #67

You avoided my question. If the Democrats do the same, the Supreme Court is finished. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #68

You mean like they did in 2002? Gee, we still actually have a SCOTUS, don't we? X_Digger Mar 2016 #69

Not silly at all. If Republicans refuse to hold hearings for a Democrat's nominee, then Trust Buster Mar 2016 #70

Argumentum ad absurdum. X_Digger Mar 2016 #71

You're the absurd one. You defend the Republicans right to not hold hearings but call the Democrats Trust Buster Mar 2016 #72

See post 73. onenote Mar 2016 #80

Stop writing their paychecks lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #27

27th Amendment jberryhill Mar 2016 #39

Not applicable lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #40

"they are collecting pay for work not performed" jberryhill Mar 2016 #41

It is their job to "advise." lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #42

I apologize, Congressman Berryhill lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #43

lol jberryhill Mar 2016 #44

No. The only option is for the voters to oust the senators. Not a lot will madinmaryland Mar 2016 #45

I love reading the comments from Seeking Serenity Mar 2016 #47

I swear, we need to get a $50 tax credit for a voluntary civic class. X_Digger Mar 2016 #54

I would be interested in doing this. Thinkingabout Mar 2016 #52

The constitution says the President (shall) nominate a candidate doc03 Mar 2016 #55

There is no requirement for a hearing onenote Mar 2016 #75

What is the point in saying the president shall appoint? What if the committee doc03 Mar 2016 #78

See post 73. onenote Mar 2016 #79

I'm sure if it is possible, President Obama would have thought of it. nt GreenEyedLefty Mar 2016 #59

No. Constitutional expectations are not the same as constitutional requirements onenote Mar 2016 #73

They're refusing to advise or even consider the nominee. benpollard Mar 2016 #76

He's made his appointment. onenote Mar 2016 #82

I thought we had put this subject to bed weeks ago: but let's review onenote Mar 2016 #83

So what if another one of the right wingers dies and the court has 4 liberals and doc03 Mar 2016 #84

Yes. The President can refuse to nominate anyone onenote Mar 2016 #85