Supreme Court Appointment

Page 12 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Feb 2016, 7:18 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, same difference to me.

another example of conservatives not understanding the concept of 'consent.'

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Feb 2016, 7:21 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

He can't get his legislation through Congress because he is so inept.

LOL are you f*****g blind? This forum has plenty of examples of how batshit insane Obama has made the conservatives; he can't get congress to take up their own Republican legislation if he dares to agree with them on it! The right wing went apeshit over 'Obamacare,' which is a REPUBLICAN IDEA.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,245
Location: the island of defective toy santas

19 Feb 2016, 7:28 pm

they strain at gnats but swallow camels, as least their own camels, at least until recently. now they'd rather starve.

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

19 Feb 2016, 9:33 pm

LKL wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

He can't get his legislation through Congress because he is so inept.

Prove to me Obama care was an idea in Congress by Republicans. Include the vote spread and the major conservatives who backed it.

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

19 Feb 2016, 11:02 pm

AspE wrote:

I'm a realist.

So if my neighbor discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with half the men on this street … and the UPS guy … and a plumber who stopped by … and while he was out of town, she hung out a sign saying "BJs $5" … I'll say "Be realistic! She's just interpreting her wedding vows! That's what married people do!"

kraftiekortie wrote:

Obviously, Supreme Court Justices "interpret the Constitution" in various ways, coming from various angles.

Basically, some want to adhere to the notions which the 18th century compilers adhered to. They are called "strict constructionists."

Basically, others believe that the Constitution is dynamic, and must adapt to the times.

Every other legal document in the country is held to say what it says, and not to say what it does not say. If you sign a contract with the neighbor kid agreeing to pay him a certain amount in exchange for his mowing your lawn, you're not going to have much luck arguing in court that, over the course of a year, it has "adapted" into also requiring him to take out your trash and wash your windows.

But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has largely adopted Holmes's Lochner concept of an "empty" Constitution, so "dynamic" that it says nothing in particular. The result is what we have today, Executive and Legislative Branches which no longer even pretend to be limiting themselves to the enumerated powers, but do whatever they please. I can think of several terms to describe those who think granting unlimited power to the State is a good idea, but "strict constitutionalist" ain't one of them.

_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

19 Feb 2016, 11:18 pm

luan78zao wrote:

AspE wrote:

I'm a realist.

you must be using your own definition of 'faithful' in that case.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Feb 2016, 7:46 pm

The ability to nominate a new jurist to the Supreme Court has always been the prerogative of the President as a vested power via the Constitution.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

20 Feb 2016, 7:51 pm

Deltaville wrote:

The ability to nominate a new jurist to the Supreme Court has always been the prerogative of the President as a vested power via the Constitution.

It has always been the prerogative of the Senate to approve the nominee under the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-ad ... nt-clause/

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 20 Feb 2016, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Feb 2016, 7:53 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

The ability to nominate a new jurist to the Supreme Court has always been the prerogative of the President as a vested power via the Constitution.

It has always been the prerogative of the Senate to approve the nominee under the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution

That is correct. But, if I am not mistaken, only the President has the right to propose a new nominee to the Senate.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

20 Feb 2016, 7:54 pm

Deltaville wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

The ability to nominate a new jurist to the Supreme Court has always been the prerogative of the President as a vested power via the Constitution.

It has always been the prerogative of the Senate to approve the nominee under the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution

That is correct. But, if I am not mistaken, only the President has the right to propose a new nominee to the Senate.

Yes but the Senate must approve it

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Feb 2016, 7:56 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

The ability to nominate a new jurist to the Supreme Court has always been the prerogative of the President as a vested power via the Constitution.

It has always been the prerogative of the Senate to approve the nominee under the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution

That is correct. But, if I am not mistaken, only the President has the right to propose a new nominee to the Senate.

Yes but the Senate must approve it

That is exactly what I meant. My apologies.

I have a strong knowledge of the American Supreme Court, but once in a while I assume that everyone knows what is going on in my head.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

20 Feb 2016, 7:56 pm

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Feb 2016, 7:58 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2.

I studied the US Constitution. I know. Earlier on I said the president has the authority to nominate a new jurist to the supreme court.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

20 Feb 2016, 8:00 pm

Deltaville wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2.

I studied the US Constitution. I know. Earlier on I said the president has the authority to nominate a new jurist to the supreme court.

Yes but the Senate has the right to kill the nomination.

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

20 Feb 2016, 8:00 pm

Deltaville wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2.

I studied the US Constitution. I know. Earlier on I said the president has the authority to nominate a new jurist to the supreme court.

Yes but the Senate has the right to deny the nomination through a filibuster or through committee

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Feb 2016, 8:01 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2.

I studied the US Constitution. I know. Earlier on I said the president has the authority to nominate a new jurist to the supreme court.

Yes but the Senate has the right to kill the nomination.

*facepalm*

Hence, the word 'nominate.'

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Page 12 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Jump to:

Supreme Court Appointment Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court Appointment