• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 68.4%

  • No

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • Total voters
    38
Hercules56 said:
It was an unConstitutional act of treason.

But with the Trump and his lemmings sucking up to Russia, insulting our military and intelligence services, its now clear what has happened. We have suffered a coup de etat. Obama should react accordingly and suspend the transfer of power to Trump until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...

Ahh am I playing too rough, lets slow down a bit. :)
 
logger said:
Ahh am I playing too rough, lets slow down a bit. :)
Click to expand...

No, you've been honest about your intentions and the treasonous intentions of the GOP.

Obama must suspend the transfer of Executive Authority to the Trump until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
 
logger said:
Ok, I'll continue


Good luck with that, he has to find his balls first!
Click to expand...

The abstention from the UN vote and the new sanctions on Russia shows he may have found his balls.

He should suspend the transfer of Executive Authority to the traitor Trump until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
 
Hercules56 said:
The abstention from the UN vote and the new sanctions on Russia shows he may have found his balls.

He should suspend the transfer of Executive Authority to the traitor Trump until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...
You better let him know!
 
Hercules56 said:
The GOP has declared that no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office.

The Democrats should have taken the Republicans to court immediately as this violated the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The ratio of law professors on your side compared to the whole is comparable to climate change denial scientists to the whole.
 
Hercules56 said:
The GOP has declared that no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office.

The Democrats should have taken the Republicans to court immediately as this violated the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The constitution only says, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [....], Judges of the supreme Court, [....]. There is nothing that says what process (if any) the Senate should follow before it gives its Advice and Consent.

If the Senate has said that "no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office" then that is their advice and it is constitutional.
 
psionl0 said:
The constitution only says, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [....], Judges of the supreme Court, [....]. There is nothing that says what process (if any) the Senate should follow before it gives its Advice and Consent.

If the Senate has said that "no sitting President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court during their final year in office" then that is their advice and it is constitutional.
Click to expand...

Considering that it turns out that their actual advice was "no sitting Democratic President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court ever", as shown by their statements when it appeared Clinton was going to win the election, I'd say the constitutionality is in question.
 
uke2se said:
Considering that it turns out that their actual advice was "no sitting Democratic President may nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court ever", as shown by their statements when it appeared Clinton was going to win the election, I'd say the constitutionality is in question.
Click to expand...
Where in the constitution does it say that Senate advice can not name a party or that it can only give time limited advice?

Note that the Senate can just as easily change its mind and say that only Democrat presidents can nominate a SC judge. The constitution has nothing to say about that either.
 
psionl0 said:
Where in the constitution does it say that Senate advice can not name a party or that it can only give time limited advice?

Note that the Senate can just as easily change its mind and say that only Democrat presidents can nominate a SC judge. The constitution has nothing to say about that either.
Click to expand...

I actually don't know. I would find it strange if a Senate majority can simply take away the right for a President of the opposing party to perform a duty that the constitution puts on him. I'm fairly sure that there could be a constitutional challenge against that. Barring that, I would hope there are rules in place to prevent such an undemocratic decision.
 
uke2se said:
I actually don't know.
Click to expand...
Come on! There are plenty of on-line copies of the constitution that you can read.

It's always possible that the SCOTUS might say "**** the words" and take a similar stance to yours. That's why the GOP doesn't want any more lefty pinko God-complexed judges on the SCOTUS.
 
uke2se said:
I actually don't know. I would find it strange if a Senate majority can simply take away the right for a President of the opposing party to perform a duty that the constitution puts on him. I'm fairly sure that there could be a constitutional challenge against that. Barring that, I would hope there are rules in place to prevent such an undemocratic decision.
Click to expand...

Nope. The vast majority of scholars on this side with the Senate.
 
psionl0 said:
Come on! There are plenty of on-line copies of the constitution that you can read.

It's always possible that the SCOTUS might say "**** the words" and take a similar stance to yours. That's why the GOP doesn't want any more lefty pinko God-complexed judges on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

If there is no law against what the GOP is doing in this case, there should be.

The GOP should understand that what goes around comes around.
 
uke2se said:
If there is no law against what the GOP is doing in this case, there should be.

The GOP should understand that what goes around comes around.
Click to expand...

You can't make a law. The role is defined by the constitution. Heck, the law specifying the size of the court is likely unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom