Posted on 02/22/2016 11:01:05 AM PST by b4its2late
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) publicly stated that lame-duck President Barack Obama should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice and that the seat should not be filled "until we have a new president," he was spot on.
Under the Constitution, Senator McConnell has the power to block President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are a number of points in the confirmation process where the Senate can stop the process and there is nothing that the President and Senate Democrats can do to get the nomination confirmed.
Blocking the President's nomination, without knowing who it is going to be, is the right thing to do with so many treasured freedoms, including the right to bear arms, hanging in the balance of one Supreme Court justice. It is vexing that so many of the hot button issues of the day fall down on 5-4 decisions. Republican senators should be run out of the Capitol if they allow President Obama to add another rubber stamp for his leftist agenda in the mold of Justices Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor.
There are two individuals who play a disproportionate constitutional role in this process. President Obama can nominate somebody to the Court and Senate Majority Leader McConnell can refuse to proceed to that nomination if he so chooses. There will be many stages in the process where the Senate can grind the process to a halt and all are constitutionally permissible.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
dont’ block them, REJECT them. like the dems did Bork
What confusion.
First of all POTUS doesn’t “appoint “ a SCOTUS Justice, he NOMINATES him. That is all.
The Senate may or may not confirm him. It is the SENATE that has the final say. The Senate can simply ignore a nominee until time runs out. The Senate doesn’t have to do anything.
dont’ block them, REJECT them. like the dems did Bork
Stupid tactically.
The President has every right and arguably the obligation to appoint a justice. The Senate has the job responsibility to consider the president’s appointment. The Senate has zero obligation to approve.
Instead of letting the process play out the way the founders intended (including refusing to confirm whatever whackjob is nominated)the Republicans come off as infantile, lazy, unconstitutional and overly partisan.
No, it’s better not to let it come to a vote, but they should allow the process to proceed . . . s - l — o —— w ———— l -———————— y. It should never come up for a vote, and the Senate should never officially be in recess for as long as the socialist thug in is power. We are better off taking our time to schedule hearings, taking a long time for the hearings, and then not concluding the hearings due to other commitments and demands on their time, rather than giving them a straight rejection that will be played as “racist” (motivating their base) and allowing for a second nomination that must also be blocked.
A new Senate will be seated January 3. Obama is in office till January 20. If the Dems take back the Senate Obama’s appointment will be seated.
Where is 9 justices enumerated in the Constitution? SCOTUS started out with 6. An even number intentionally so when there was a tie the decision would default back closer to the people and the lower court decision.
IIRC, the number of SCOTUS justices as being nine was fixed by law in 1869.
In 1937 FDR tried to `pack’ the Supreme Court by having legislation introduced that would authorize one additional justice for each current justice over age 70. This would have meant four more. It failed by a whisker.
“A new Senate will be seated January 3. Obama is in office till January 20. If the Dems take back the Senate Obama’s appointment will be seated.”
This should, therefore, be a HUGE incentive for ALL opposed to the Left in this country to go to the polls in November. Those who will stay home in a huff because their preferred candidate wasn’t the nominee for President will - as usual - force the rest of us to live by the results of their own selfishness. That’s one thing that I’ve got to hand to the Dems - at least they understand that politics is a team sport, and they mostly come out and vote even if they don’t much like the person at the top of the ticket. We should learn from that.
This is the best path forward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.