It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: 'It will be difficult' for McConnell to explain decision to block Supreme Court nominee

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



The absence of a mandate to act implies the right not to, in all legal language, period.

That is why laws say things like " shall" "will" " must".

There is no law that action is required unless it is mandated.

You are just blinded by your idiology, and want it to mandate it, but it doesn't.


Interesting thesis.

Can you point to any expression of your opinions in actual legal practice? In say ... the wording of the Constitution (since I'm sure you are a literalist and a constructionist) which says that the Senate can refuse to act?

Because, last time I checked, interpretation of the Constitution, is simply not acceptable to the ideological Right wing that you seem to be fronting for here ... even while you're falsely accusing others of the same thing ...

So ... state the Constitutional basis for your "interpretation" if you please. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

edit on 24-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Double post



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sargeras

Why is that people on the right insist on debating me instead of the topic whenever they run out of things to talk about? Y'all should just make a thread. "Why Krazysh0t is a liberal" and y'all can go at it all day talking about how hypocritical you think I am and how much you all hate me.


I'm not on the right, lol...

You said what I quoted, I merely commented on what you said.

You are a constant hypocrite, but no I don't hate you.

You are just being you, and you are a human just like all the rest of us, and the rest of us aren't any better.

I believe abortion is murder, because it kills a human life. But I don't think it should be my Irish anyone's right to demand a woman carries and gives birth, it is her body, and her conscience.

I believe homosexuality is disgusting, I'm a man, and think men are ugly hair smelly.... Just yuck!
But then I don't like cake or ice-cream, who am I to decide what is or isn't to be liked?

Besides, all of us straight folks shouldn't have a monopoly on the misery that only marriage can bring.

I myself am a constant hypocrite as well, because while I personally believe certain things and live my life by those standards , I don't stand for them to be forced on others.

Meh, we are all just being us man, whoever you are, just enjoy being you.

Life would be boring if we were all the same.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

I don't care about any of this, guy.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Ummm...you are too...cmon...we've got your entire post history that disputes your statement...
You are entirely beholden to the left...

Which is a okay...we're all just glad you decided to..."come out"

Like Jesus to Lazarus...come out Krazy....
Ooh...what a Freudian slip that was...


YouSir



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



The absence of a mandate to act implies the right not to, in all legal language, period.

That is why laws say things like " shall" "will" " must".

There is no law that action is required unless it is mandated.

You are just blinded by your idiology, and want it to mandate it, but it doesn't.


Interesting thesis.

Can you point to any expression of your opinions in actual legal practice? In say ... the wording of the Constitution (since I'm sure you are a literalist and a constructionist) which says that the Senate can refuse to act?

Because, last time I checked, interpretation of the Constitution, is simply not acceptable to the ideological Right wing that you seem to be fronting for here ... even while you're falsely accusing others of the same thing ...

So ... state the Constitutional basis for your "interpretation" if you please. Thanks.


I'm not a righty BTW!! Lol.... ( shakes head
)

What are you talking about?

You want me to quote where it says the absence of a mandate to action implies inaction?

That is retarded!!

Unless it mandates action the right to inaction is always implied.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: EightTF3
Also since you came in complaining about congresses blatant violation of the constitution, what law are they actually violating here?


The President . . . 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. . . (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)


I agree they're not honoring the constitution as it was intended, but they can drag it out as long as they want. They already don't work as it is, why bother with a fake advice and consent phase? No candidate is going to feel like getting dragged through the mud for a job they can't really have.

Where we completely disagree is you claim to have no problem with Obama (executive branch) screwing up the balance of power with Congress(legislative). That has long lasting effects, it's not intended to be used on many of the issues he uses it for just to bypass congress. I wouldn't be happy regardless of who was abusing it. I got a feeling you wouldn't like a President Trump who believes all he needs to govern is a pen and some and paper.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3

Actually you are wrong. Throughout the history of the United States, the power of the President has waxed and waned depending on the will of the public towards these things. For instance, the President had a lot of power pre-Civil War, but then after the Civil War, the public wanted a President with less authority so the Presidents following the Civil War had less authority. This changed again with people like Teddy.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



The absence of a mandate to act implies the right not to, in all legal language, period.

That is why laws say things like " shall" "will" " must".

There is no law that action is required unless it is mandated.

You are just blinded by your idiology, and want it to mandate it, but it doesn't.


Interesting thesis.

Can you point to any expression of your opinions in actual legal practice? In say ... the wording of the Constitution (since I'm sure you are a literalist and a constructionist) which says that the Senate can refuse to act?

Because, last time I checked, interpretation of the Constitution, is simply not acceptable to the ideological Right wing that you seem to be fronting for here ... even while you're falsely accusing others of the same thing ...

So ... state the Constitutional basis for your "interpretation" if you please. Thanks.


I'm not a righty BTW!! Lol.... ( shakes head
)

What are you talking about?

You want me to quote where it says the absence of a mandate to action implies inaction?

That is retarded!!

Unless it mandates action the right to inaction is always implied.



Article II enumerates the powers of the President of the United States.

One of those powers is to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia.

Logically (and legally I might add) the power to Advise and Consent is a reactionary power.

The Senate can (and should) Advise the President on any nominee.

The Senate can (and should) either Consent or refuse Consent based on their conscience and opinion.

Notice that the Senate, in both those scenarios is DOING SOMETHING.

The Constitution enables the Senate to DO SOMETHING. That is, in every sense of the word possible, a MANDATE.

It does not enable the Senate to REFUSE TO DO SOMETHING.

Your point is illogical and without any legal basis. If there is a legal basis, or a Constitutional one ... just cite it.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Ummm...you are too...cmon...we've got your entire post history that disputes your statement...
You are entirely beholden to the left...


My entire post history? Like this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
how about this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EightTF3

Actually you are wrong. Throughout the history of the United States, the power of the President has waxed and waned depending on the will of the public towards these things. For instance, the President had a lot of power pre-Civil War, but then after the Civil War, the public wanted a President with less authority so the Presidents following the Civil War had less authority. This changed again with people like Teddy.



Will of the public? Have you looked at the shift at the legislative level since Obama took over? How exactly would you define more unilateral action as the peoples will? Yours maybe



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: EightTF3

Obama was just following the lead set by his predecessor.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution does not authorize the Senate to "do nothing."

Advice and Consent (or No Consent) are ACTIONS.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers Mitch McConnell (or the US Senate) to "do nothing."



The absence of a mandate to act implies the right not to, in all legal language, period.

That is why laws say things like " shall" "will" " must".

There is no law that action is required unless it is mandated.

You are just blinded by your idiology, and want it to mandate it, but it doesn't.


Interesting thesis.

Can you point to any expression of your opinions in actual legal practice? In say ... the wording of the Constitution (since I'm sure you are a literalist and a constructionist) which says that the Senate can refuse to act?

Because, last time I checked, interpretation of the Constitution, is simply not acceptable to the ideological Right wing that you seem to be fronting for here ... even while you're falsely accusing others of the same thing ...

So ... state the Constitutional basis for your "interpretation" if you please. Thanks.


I'm not a righty BTW!! Lol.... ( shakes head
)

What are you talking about?

You want me to quote where it says the absence of a mandate to action implies inaction?

That is retarded!!

Unless it mandates action the right to inaction is always implied.



Article II enumerates the powers of the President of the United States.

One of those powers is to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia.

Logically (and legally I might add) the power to Advise and Consent is a reactionary power.

The Senate can (and should) Advise the President on any nominee.

The Senate can (and should) either Consent or refuse Consent based on their conscience and opinion.

Notice that the Senate, in both those scenarios is DOING SOMETHING.

The Constitution enables the Senate to DO SOMETHING. That is, in every sense of the word possible, a MANDATE.

It does not enable the Senate to REFUSE TO DO SOMETHING.

Your point is illogical and without any legal basis. If there is a legal basis, or a Constitutional one ... just cite it.


" can" means could if they choose to
"should" means aught to, but it is not mandatory

" mandatory " shall, must will

You see how those words are different right?

Notice how mandate is the root word of mandatory?

Talk about illogical.

Should they advise and confirm or deny the Obama so pick? Yes

Is it mandatory? No, it is not.

Thanks for playing you lose, quite badly in fact!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EightTF3

Obama was just following the lead set by his predecessor.


Blame bush?

Meh, it has been 7 years of it, why stop now?

Weren't you the one saying that just because the other side did doesn't make it right?

It does that only count if you use it?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ummm...OK...I know when I've been beaten...23,704 posts and two weak examples...sure glad it wasn't a cage match...cause you'd have knocked me clear out of the arena with those...

I'm a big man...(literally)...sniff...I know when I've been bested...

I like you Krazy...(WOW...time to lay off the Freudianism)

I'll be a good lad now and go talk to someone else...




YouSir
edit on 24-2-2016 by YouSir because: I likey...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

I don't have a problem with this though. I think the power that Obama, and therefore his predecessor, is at the appropriate level currently.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

You have no Constitutional basis, no legal basis, no basis at all for your statement.

I demonstrated your error clearly and logically.

Declare "victory" if you wish ... you are still completely mistaken in your assertions.

Why not offer backup for your claim? Any backup.

Cite some reputable source for your assertions ... say "Black's Law Dictionary" or established case law or ... well ... anything besides your own rather dubious "authority."

Aside from that, your comments are doubly fallacious as an "appeal to (your own) authority."

To be clear, your claim that you're trying to back up is "Article II does not clearly mandate that the Senate either "Advise" or 'Consent-refuse Consent' in response to a Presidential nomination."



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EightTF3

Obama was just following the lead set by his predecessor.


I'm done after this as it's beginning to feel pointless.

You spent the entire earlier part of the thread saying you aren't partisan, just some sort of mythical straight shooter. I've already stated I don't like overreach of executive power regardless of who it is, but you find it appropriate for Obama "cause the other guy did it". Yet you're appalled at congress for trying to logjam a court appointment when you've already been handed proof(video) of Joe Biden and Obama attempting the same thing, but as you said it's your opinion that what happened in the past is unrelated to people fulfilling their duty now. Tell us all again about how much less bias you are then the rest of us!
edit on 24-2-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sargeras

You have no Constitutional basis, no legal basis, no basis at all for your statement.

I demonstrated your error clearly and logically.

Declare "victory" if you wish ... you are still completely mistaken in your assertions.

Why not offer backup for your claim? Any backup.

Cite some reputable source for your assertions ... say "Black's Law Dictionary" or established case law or ... well ... anything besides your own rather dubious "authority."

Aside from that, your comments are doubly fallacious as an "appeal to (your own) authority."

To be clear, your claim that you're trying to back up is "Article II does not clearly mandate that the Senate either "Advise" or 'Consent-refuse Consent' in response to a Presidential nomination."



Or you could, since you are the one making things up that are not there, show me where in law, there is ever a mandate to action, where one is not explicitly stated.

I made no claims, you claimed there was a mandate, and that it was unconstitutional for them not to do it.

I stated there is no mandate for the Senate to act in article II.

Because there isn't a mandate.

It clearly states it is the president right to nominate a justice, and after the Senate advises and consents appoint one.

It does not mandate that the Senate do anything .

You are making claims, not me, I am simply pointing out the fact there is no mandate in article II for the Senate to act. So they do not have to.

Is it bad form? Yes
Is it legal and constitutional not to act? Yes

Once again, thanks for the failure of logic on all points of your post!

It shows how much fun people who think laws work like their wants instead of with reason are!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
My opinion, although I have no clue as to precedents set in the past in these situations, would be that if the job is so unimportant that it doesn't need to be filled for over a year, eliminate the position.

Say we cant have a 4-4 tie? get rid of one more, down to 7. If we don't need a 9th, why an 8th?

This Mitch McConnell cat doesnt want to do his job, get rid of him too.

I think this is where Donald Trumps support comes from. Years of these self entitled bastards refusing to do their job.

Do they think a Republican will win the White House? Unless it is Trump they won't.

The whole political system in this country is a farce and a sham and this just proves it.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join