Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

"Bork" ... nice double entendre. Kudos for that.

Anything in the spirit of the Constitution, eh?

Nothing un-Constitutional about it. President nominates, Senate gives the thumbs up or down. Maybe they can do it without destroying the nominee in the process, unlike what the Dems did to Bork and tried to do to Thomas.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"

Nice.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And we sure know my critics sure are for the constitution right ?

Except when it comes to the property rights of rich people, and gun owners.

Or anyone else they don't like.

Shame they are never honest.

Ted Cruz ( who is every bit as narcissistic as Donald Trump) is already saying he will see to it that a new justice is not appointed until after the next election.

Kind of makes me want to slap him.

Yes, apparently I've become violent. Bite me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"

Nice.

If Obama nominates an unpalatable progressive judicial activist, it won't be childish to reject them. The mature adult response will be to send them away and demand someone better.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

It takes a 2/3rds vote from congress, if I'm not mistaken.

But the Constitution never set a time limit.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

And we sure know my critics sure are for the constitution right ?

Except when it comes to the property rights of rich people, and gun owners.

Or anyone else they don't like.

Shame they are never honest.

Ah, there you go. Back to the normal script!

"Your" critics, eh? You certainly are important in your own mind, aren't you, LOL.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention guns at all, per se, and the only property mentioned is that of the United States.

Funny what you discover when you actually read it.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
No need to change anything. Just bork all of Obama's nominees.

Agreed, and honestly, I'm not sure the GOP Senate has much choice. They're already facing a full scale revolt of their base against the party establishment, precisely because the base views the establishment as a bunch of spineless sellouts to Obama and the Dems. The GOP establishment has painted itself into a corner and I don't think they can allow an Obama appointee through the nomination process without losing big in November and I think they know it.

Of course, they're also within their Constitutional authority to do that. As you say, the president nominates, the Senate confirms or rejects. Its not the Senate's job to be the executive branch's rubber stamp department on this or any other issue, and if the nominee is a poor one in their view, they're obligated to reject that nominee...no matter how many times it takes until there's there's one that they can support.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"

Nice.

If Obama nominates an unpalatable progressive judicial activist, it won't be childish to reject them. The mature adult response will be to send them away and demand someone better.

But it's fine and dandy for a Senator to state that the Senate will stand in abeyance of the President's Constitutional power to appoint WHATEVER the nature of the appointee, right?

a reply to: vor78

The President doesn't "nominate" he or she (might as well get used to saying it) APPOINTS.

The action of the Senate is supposed to be a formality, not an unconstitutional block to the President's power.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Nope. Ted has that kind of face.

Whatever stupidity is rolling out of it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, yeah, it is. The Senate has the authority to reject the president's nominees for any reason they want. Likewise, the public can choose whether those reasons were justified or not at the polling booth.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention guns at all, per se, and the only property mentioned is that of the United States.

It doesn't ?

Yeah someone needs to read it.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

www.law.cornell.edu...

arm 2 (ärm) n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Hello police ?

I think I got trolled.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The action of the Senate is supposed to be a formality, not an unconstitutional block to the President's power.

Hm, well that's a stroll down memory lane.

I wonder if Harvard Law School offers courses now in how to effectively design and facilitate obstacles?

a reply to: vor78

Yeah "what is"?

The Senate can fail to confirm the appointment, sure. It's happened, occasionally, for good and pertinent reasons.

Article II addresses the powers given to the President, it is not addressing a power given to the Senate (that'd be Article I).

The Senate in this matter clearly has a secondary or subordinate role. For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

The President doesn't "nominate" he or she (might as well get used to saying it) APPOINTS.

The action of the Senate is supposed to be a formality, not an unconstitutional block to the President's power.

Ah, no. The president nominates, but appointment requires consent of the Senate.

From Article 2, Section 2.

he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78

The President doesn't "nominate" he or she (might as well get used to saying it) APPOINTS.

The action of the Senate is supposed to be a formality, not an unconstitutional block to the President's power.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Consent of the Senate. He can't appoint them without the Senate's approval. Try again.

a reply to: neo96

Not trolled, you're just not thinking ... literally.

The word "guns" is not in the Constitution. As you point out, the word is "arms." Not only that, but your "Free Dictionary" doesn't mention "guns" either.

The word "property" is in the Constitution and it refers to the property of the United States.

LOL.

So when it say 'bear arms' are you trying to say the COTUS gives us all the right to amputate grizzly bears and flail their limbs in the air?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78
For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.

How hyperbolic.

President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

Guess who said that? He was a darling of the Dems. A lion, some said.