Supreme Court Appointment

Post Reply New Topic

The President gets to nominate a justice, the Senate gets to approve him or not approve him. This is one of those "checks and balances" which everybody loves until they're the ones being "checked."

Whether the President has a month left in office or 47 months, I believe that a candidate without a proven understanding of and commitment to the principles of the Constitution is not qualified for the job and should not be confirmed. Unfortunately that's likely to be anybody nominated by this President.

One thing's for sure: if a SC vacancy arose in the last year of a President who was a conservative Republican, everybody's views on what ought to be done would be 100% reversed.

Take a good look at his track-record and ask what he didn't do. I'm not an originalist, and honestly one could interpret anything they wanted if they were clever enough. Scalia has voted against civil rights cases and for corporate personhood. That last one is going to harm us for years to come.

Mitch Mcconnell can't muster enough civility to even pretend that he's acting in good faith. He's made it clear multiple times that opposing Obama is his main goal. In fact, opposing Obama has a popular rebound between slip-ups in these Republican debates.

It is quite possible that the GOP Senators will end up giving the Democrats a boost regardless of their decision to block a nominee or not.

If the GOP chooses to move forward with Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court, he will get to decide the future majority of the Supreme Court. A win for the Democrats.

If the GOP chooses to block Obama's candidate, they may end up vilifying themselves even further and making it easier for the Democrats to claim the Presidency in the 2016 election. A potentially even bigger win for the Democrats.

If the GOP sticks to blocking nominees until after the election, every Supreme Court case which goes unresolved due to a tie from now until 2017 can be used by the Democrats to point the finger at the GOP for crippling the judiciary (and quite conveniently, at presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio, as they - as Senators - themselves are tasked with approving Supreme Court nominees).

The term "advice and consent" first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate's role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president's duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:


[The President] 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.

This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the president, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the congress. Requiring the president to gain the advice and consent of the senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.

Under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, appointments to the office of Vice President are confirmed by a majority vote in both Houses of Congress, instead of just the Senate.Typically, a congressional hearing is held to question an appointee prior to a committee vote. If the nominee is approved by the relevant committee, the full Senate must then approve the nomination. The actual motion adopted by the Senate when exercising the power is "to advise and consent". For appointments, a majority of Senators present are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent". A filibuster requiring a three-fifths vote to override, and other similar delaying tactics have been used to require higher vote tallies in the past

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

It looks like we have 9 or so toss-up states; most of which have Republicans as incumbent Senators. At least some of them are going to have to rethink this official power-play. This issue is not being ignored like usual partisan games, I'm willing to vote Hillary myself over this, no Sanders write-in campaign for me.

Its the Senate's duty to uphold the rules outlined in the Constitution not play to King Obama's whim. If the Senate Majority leader says the nominee is not going to get a hearing he will not get a hearing. First, this person will have to go through both the House and Senate Judiciary committee. They will pick apart this person piece by piece.Remember, the Republicans can filibuster this vote(if it makes it to the floor). It take 3/5 of a vote to break this type of filibuster. Think of it as the revenge of Robert Bork.If Obama is smart why does he use his recess authority and see how far he gets.

Revenge for Bork? So what you expect from the senate is to avenge Ronald Reagan for not getting his first SC nominee in? Reagan was able to get Clarence Thomas confirmed after that, Democrats didn't announce that anything Reagan proposed would be too right-wing and vow to block them all.

Also Obama hasn't used his his recess authority, my guess is he'll try to appoint one the normal way. There is no guarantee that all the republicans will stick together on this, not all of them have constituents who approve of what Mitch proposed.

I think that when Bork was rejected it pissed off a lot of Republicans especially those who were there in office in that era. Many of these Republicans, especially in the Judiciary Committees are very conservative and have long memories and they do not like Obama. Obama will not succeed. Mitch McConnell said that he will not entertain any nomination. He said this within one hour of Scalia's death. By any accounts any nomination is dead on arrival. The Judiciary Committees will pick apart this nominee. Remember, committee members are chosen by the Speaker and Senate Majority and usually have the same ideological views of their leaders.

Politics are different than it was when Clarence Thomas was chosen. Obama has ticked off the Republicans its amazing that the Speaker and Senate Majority takes Obama's call. Its much more partisan. I would not.I would ask my receptionist to leave a message and put in the shredder. Mitch McConnell or the Speaker would say, if you do not toe the line, we are not going to give campaign funds, donations from the political party and private donors. We will leave you to fend for yourself or we will stick you in some obscure committee as punishment. The Speaker and the Majority Leader can with hold any "pork barrel" projects to the Congressman district if they do not vote a certain way. Its time to "Bork" Obama.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

So even if Obama could find someone BOTH parties approve of, it would get rejected because the senate already doesn't trust Obama as well as the next guy, also they're still mad that Reagan had to nominate twice in order to fill a seat back in the 1980's

Any liberal nomination is dead on arrival. Mitch McConnell has mentioned this several times in the last 24 hours. He also stated that he is going to wait until the election is over.When Mitch McConnell says something he means it. Obama will have to pick someone that will not be "Borked" and meet the Republicans approval. For appointments, a majority of Senators present are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent". A filibuster requiring a three-fifths vote to override, as required in the Constitution and Senate rules.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ahh, the power angle is what morally justifies all the questionable stuff, got it.

Mitch McConnell is following what the Constitution says. When the Democrats were in power for decades, they used to beat Republican Presidents over the head with these same rules and obscure procedures and they agreed and signed their legislation. Its about time Obama learn something from the Constitution. He is not King Obama the First.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ So the constitution says...

"After a party denies your candidate, you must count to the number 2, no more, no less. When the 2nd elected president nominates a SC justice for the 3rd time, you shall block all efforts to nominate if the offending party has angered you sufficiently..."

The Republicans have the Constitution and Senate Rules backing them unless Obama is willing to call a Constitutional Convention or place an amendment to the Constitution to be re-written or amended. I have the Constitution backing me.Obama has no choice to play ball or all his nominations will get nuked until the Senate gets a passable nomination.

Under Article 5 of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation's founding document.The other method by which all previous constitutional amendments have been initiated requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Ratifying amendments then require three-fourths of the states to approve.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.