JV, you are too sanguine about this issue, in my opinion. Your response is the BBS equivalent of a shrug, a "So what?" The hearings do matter. Our political process as spelled out by our constitution does matter. A Majority Leader taking an enormous crap on the constitution does matter. That a seat will remain unfilled, a nominee not even giving a hearing for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court does matter. All you are doing with your response, essentially a shrug, is encouraging this behavior and future behavior by either party in power, if one looks at the broad picture, in my opinion. This isn't business as usual, and one can't depend on the American electorate to understand just what McConnell's dismissal of even holding hearings on a President's nomination to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court, an act, again (and I'll keep repeating it), unprecedented in our history, means in the context of our political history. As Major pointed out, no incoming President has had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill in over 150 years. Think about that. That deserves a "shrug?" Yes, the American electorate very well may make the Republican Party pay for their extremism, their disdain for the constitution of the United States. I certainly hope so. They could also have your response to this issue - a collective shrug. A collective "Who cares? It'll work out." I simply can't agree.
Such outrage from a party that has done exactly the same thing before and will in the future.... This is our political process and if it were unconstitutional or illegal somebody would be prosecuted... it isn't and they won't be.
That is a damned lie. Show us the proof. Go ahead. No political party in the history of our country has refused to hold hearings on a President's nomination to the Supreme Court, and no incoming President has had a vacant Supreme Court seat to fill upon taking office in over 150 years. You are a liar, sir, or simply ignorant. I'm leaning towards you being the latter, with all respect due.
And when they do basically the same in the future, those who are so outraged now will defend it and there will be others who take up the outrage. It's just far too predictable.
The Senate Majority Leader denying votes is the Senate Majority Leader denying votes. It doesn't actually make any difference if they are denying a vote on a SCOTUS nomination or a bill that hits the Senate. It's the same thing.....the ONLY reason why some are pretending there is a difference is due to partisan reasons. Swap out Obama for a Republican and make the Senate Majority Leader a Democrat and literally none of the people whining about this have a problem with it anymore......and they would be arguing with the Republicans who would pick up the torch when it comes to whining. Predictable and sad.
I can appreciate the argument. But, this is not so much a shrug of indifference as a shrug of fatalism. It's a recognition there is no true accountability at the top. That the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government on one another are, in practice, rather limited. A president can sign an Executive Order to violate civil rights or ignore the law (and you can pick Bush or Obama for examples of this, depending on which way you swing) and the Congress can grouse and complain but not much else. Likewise, Congress can obstruct and the President is powerless to stop them. The Supreme Court can go around striking laws as unconstitutional, but Congress will just keep making more. And, the electorate is polarized and won't punish acts made in bad faith. This is how we're built. Within their realms, there is no stopping our leaders from doing what they're going to do. Congress has been obstructing for years with impunity. They're going to keep doing what they do. There is no realistic mechanism to force them to hold a genuine nomination hearing. If you dragged McConnell before the Supreme Court to defend his behavior, he'd win. Just like there were no consequences when Bush authorized torture or when Obama chose to stop enforcing mar1juana laws. So I'll vote against Cruz and Cornyn again at my next opportunity. That'll be me 'holding them accountable for their behavior.' But, they'll be re-elected anyway. Even if they lost, there would be no deterrent effect on future obstructionism anyway. So, how much time really should I devote to huffing and blowing?
That depends on the bill and it depends on the Supreme Court nominee. When it comes to this Supreme Court nominee, Obama knew that he was never going to be confirmed, he just nominated someone for political theater. My point is that withholding a vote is no more "refusing to do your job" when it is a bill than it is a SCOTUS nominee. It's just one of the tools that the Senate has and they use it all the time.....just because they haven't used it on a SCOTUS nominee before doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't use it in that situation. The main point though is that those who have a problem with this, wouldn't have a problem if the situation was reversed. The "outrage" is based entirely on partisanship.
Hopefully Clinton will nominate a flaming 30 something ultra liberal that the newly dem controlled senate will gleefully approve.
A Supreme Court nominee is a bit of a special case because we're talking about identifying the leadership of one of the 3 co-equal branches of the United States. We wouldn't tolerate a delay in electing or swearing in a president or a congressman for anything short of extraordinary reasons, because we need to have our leadership in place. Even the appointment of federal judges, like on the DC Circuit of Appeals, is not the same because they only rule on matters of the law and do not make pronouncements regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. This role is a leader of the nation. It's a special case not really equivalent to anything else.
I'm pretty ignorant on this issue. Is the ability to prevent a vote on a bill something that is specifically spelled out in the Constitution? Because what was posted earlier from the Constitution does not explicitly allow for some stonewalling technique of not performing the advise and consent part of their duty. If the agenda control stuff and denying a vote on a bill IS called out, then calling them the same thing doesn't really fly, does it?
It's nothing like that actually. Swearing in a president or congressman is not contingent on their acceptance by another branch, a SCOTUS nominee is. If it was so vitally important that the SCOTUS vacancy be filled immediately then Obama should have nominated a right leaning justice that would entice the Senate to move forward in a more expeditious manner. There's nothing that forces the Senate to act in any time frame, so they are well within their rights to delay the issue indefinitely if they think it is the right thing to do.....and that doesn't change simply because partisans that side with the president get upset about it. I'm sure there are Republican partisans that get upset when Obama vetoes bills that make it through the house and senate grinding progress to a halt but that's within his rights as well. The system is set up to be slow moving and inefficient. When people don't work together it is supposed to get gridlocked, it's the whole point.
Yes, I recognize there is nothing to force the Senate to move, as I had discussed in an earlier post. They are acting within the Constitution as far as I can tell. But, you were saying not voting on this is the equivalent of not voting on a bill. That's a different matter altogether. From a process point of view, it's the same. For what it means for our country, though, it's a substantially different thing. It shouldn't be a partisan thing. The entire electorate should be siding with the President on this one. It's only partisanship that allows McConnell to take the position he has. If the tables were turned, that'd still be true, even if the entire electorate flip-flopped on the issue.
Well what I was saying was that from a process standpoint it was the same. It is just being used in a manner not done before, but it's very rare for a situation like this to happen, so it's not really that big a thing that it hasn't happened before. Personally, I understand why they are slow rolling things. They are in no rush and they want to see how the election plays out. If Trump nabs the Republican nomination, they likely approve the SCOTUS nominee because Hillary will be a lock to win the presidency. If things go down differently, they'll hold out for a SCOTUS nominee that is more closely in line with what they think would be in the best interest of the country. They don't want to burn this nominee, so instead of bringing it to a vote and voting him down, they are delaying it. The rest is just political theater.
This is what the constitution says: He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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. Omitting extraneous information: The President shall have the Power, [to] nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint, Judges of the supreme Court 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. It becomes an interpretation debate. Republican senators have to assert that refusing to have a dialog about the nomination is a form of advice. They could maybe get away with that in court however their rhetoric would **** them if this ever goes to the supreme court. Their refusal to have a dialog is based (by their words) on the President's authority (or right) to name an officer of the court. To me, that is not inline with the constitution. The text seems clear to me that the Senate considerations have to be about the candidate's worth and not the president's authority. Trying to do this by making a "checks and balances" argument is a reason why the "spirit of the law" could trump the letter but this is something that would go to the supreme court to rule on if they ever tried to formalize this objection into a law which I doubt would happen.
This is true. This is not. The Senate does not have the authority to decide whether the president should be nominating someone. I would agree that the senate was in the legal right IF they would have just said they are going to wait and that they have no time table. The problem is that they are on record objecting to the fact that the current president has the power (or right) to make an appointment BASED on the time left in his presidency. The constitution does not account for that stipulation and clearly gives him the right and power to make an appointments and the senate must advise.
I can't wait until we have a Republican president and a democratic Senate and for the dems to get their revenge by holding the country hostage and doing nothing. Then you will see the same posters here talk about how unfair and unpatriotic Dems are. I bet a lot of money that is exactly what will happen.
