Posted on 02/13/2016 1:55:56 PM PST by Pan_Yan
Why would any Republican Senate confirm any Democratic President’s SCJ nominations ever then? And vice versa? Are Supreme Court Justices only to be appointed when both the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same Political party? Anything else is going to demand “compromise” of some sort, and those involved labeled by some as “traitors”.
For me, I am sick period of adjusting the rules to suit. Things like suspending the Constitutional process in order to save the Constitution. Stuff like that.
On top of the doing of the Constitutional process, I personally feel that an Election for President and members of Congress would go badly for us if characterized solely as a vote for balance of power on the SCOTUS. That makes everyone running for elected office (at least as far as President and Seneate) a vicar for an unelected position. That kind of election would empower votes for something that is not stated in the Constitution.
Why would any Republican Senate confirm any Democratic President's SCJ nominations ever then? And vice versa? Are Supreme Court Justices only to be appointed when both the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same Political party? Anything else is going to demand "compromise" of some sort, and those involved labeled by some as "traitors".For me, I am sick period of adjusting the rules to suit. Things like suspending the Constitutional process in order to save the Constitution. Stuff like that.
On top of the doing of the Constitutional process, I personally feel that an Election for President and members of Congress would go badly for us if characterized solely as a vote for balance of power on the SCOTUS. That makes everyone running for elected office (at least as far as President and Senate) a vicar for an unelected position. That kind of election would empower votes for something that is not stated in the Constitution.
You claim to worry about following the Constitution or else being called a "traitor". Leave aside for the moment the obvious point that you are operating from a position of fear of what the opposition will say. That is no way to operate.
But you are actually wrong about the Constitutionality. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint, and the Congress the power to advise and consent. Those are two separate branches, the Executive and the Legislative, with a separation of powers firewall. They are not obligated to approve his nominations. You are describing a rubber stamp found in the Politburo or a banana republic.
Furthermore, you describe smokey backroom cooperation between these two separate branches which takes We The People right out of the loop leaving the substance of the matter to the cloistered class of bureaucrats in the District Of Criminals. This is how the uniparty already operates, and how we got $20 Trillion debt and a Hundred Trillion in obligations. What's it gonna take for you to get tired of such "cooperation"?
And before you worry about what they might do why don't you try to remember what they already did to the overwhelmingly popularly re-elected Reagan in mid-term by blocking and destroying Bork solely on ideological grounds. That is how we wound up with that bastard Kennedy who still pollutes the Court to this day.
As another FReeper said somewhere above, this is the hill to die on. And unless you are trolling here with a clever (D)ummycrat psyop, you better wake up to the fact right this minute that this will be the final nail in the coffin of the United States Of America. When the bullets start flying after the Second Amendment is destroyed in a future decision, you will have no-one to blame but those like yourself who are willing to surrender ( even before Scalia is buried! ). Even the French don't wave the white flag this fast.
Anyone who disagrees with you must be from DU, or even Lindsey Graham himself I guess.
I cannot even begin to untangle your post. The very first sentence is completely disconnected from anything I “claimed”. I don’t feel the urge to clarify it with you further since every post of yours to me has been a direct and personal insult. You can jam it as far as I m concerned. No sense discussing it with you.
However, the rest of my comment is dead-on point, and quite simple to understand. You did reference "constitutionality" and I pointed out that it is perfectly constitutional to examine to Dumbo's appointment, and then summarily dismiss it. Rinse, Repeat until he leaves town. Simple.
The thrust of the comment is to fight the (D)ummies head on and defeat them this time, or else. It is in stark contrast to what you originally ( and still? ) recommended ... surrender.
Surrender is NOT an option. Period.
Thank you for taking the time to see what I said.
However, I am not suggesting surrender. I think it would be best to let the Constitution direct the process normally and avoid a contrived process which would result in probably the longest vacancy on the SCOTUS in history. I think that would be best for the political process as well, i.e. the General Election.
The President-Elect will have chosen his nominee well before inauguration on January 20. He would submit it within a few days to the already sworn in ( two weeks earlier ) Senate.
If the Senate has their act together the choice will leave committee and get a full up/down vote by February, a month or two shy of any record.
And who cares anyway? Records were made to be broken, and if the survival of the republic isn't a good enough reason to do this, then what is? All lame-duck President appointees by definition will have a year long delay if the (D)ummies own historical words, plans and deeds are to be believed. This is not news.
I remind you again what the (D)ummies did to Reagan mid-2nd term with Bork, and what they later attempted with Bush41 and Thomas. This is war, you just haven't come to grips with that fact yet.
We would all do well to learn about the extraordinary measures that VP Jefferson undertook to recalibrate the trajectory that FedGov was on by 1797. He all but declared war on President Adams and the mischievous Alexander Hamilton while he was Vice-President. This somewhat unknown 2nd American Revolution ended when he was sworn in on March 4, 1801 and Adams slinked out of town a loser and the (F) party was all but destroyed in the process.
Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, but you know what? Depriving a lame-duck President a final Supreme Court pick is not very extraordinary at all. They should be doing the same even if it had been Ginsberg or Breyer who dropped dead. The fact that it was Scalia simply makes it imperative. Defeat is NOT an option.
"Below are the top ten longest vacancies on the court, based on the beginning and end dates for each justice's term listed on the Supreme Court's website."
days span began with ended with 391 May 14, 1969 - Jun 9, 1970 Abe Fortas resigns. Harry A. Blackmun begins term. 301 May 7, 1873 - Mar 4, 1874 Salmon Portland Chase dies. Morrison Remick Waite begins term. 290 Mar 22, 1889 - Jan 6, 1890 Stanley Matthews dies. David Josiah Brewer begins term. 281 Mar 28, 1910 - Jan 3, 1911 David Josiah Brewer dies. Willis Van Devanter begins term. 281 Mar 4, 1877 - Dec 10, 1877 David Davis resigns. John Marshall Harlan begins term. 262 Jan 22, 1892 - Oct 10, 1892 Joseph P. Bradley dies. George Shiras, Jr. begins term. 249 May 14, 1887 - Jan 18, 1888 William Burnham Woods dies. Lucius Quintus C. Lamar begins term. 248 Jul 7, 1893 - Mar 12, 1894 Samuel Blatchford dies. Edward Douglass White begins term. 237 Jun 26, 1987 - Feb 18, 1988 Lewis F. Powell, Jr. retires. Anthony M. Kennedy begins term. 205 Jul 9, 1938 - Jan 30, 1939 Benjamin Nathan Cardozo dies. Felix Frankfurter begins term.
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.