You think the Supreme Court should be left with a vacancy for over a year, just to serve your political agenda?
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
You think the Supreme Court should be left with a vacancy for over a year, just to serve your political agenda?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM, let's see.
This was about an appointment to the Supreme Court and you want to discuss Presidential terms.
Is this an example of the comments you attempted to make in APP, that you were complaining about being deleted??
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
ftfy
If they can, they will -there isn't any risk to jurisprudence .
You think Obama is a King and simply because he offers and appointment for consideration the Senate should bow to him and say, yes sir?
One of the duties of the elected president is to appoint Supreme Court justices. The reason the Republicans might delay acting on any of President Obama's appointment would be to try and delay it until a new president is elected. In fact this is subverting the last presidential election and disregarding the the will of the people in that election.
No I never said they had to vote for his appointment, I simply said it is their duty to conduct a vote on his appointment.
Are they wrong?
Conservative law professors Josh Blackman and Randy Barnett have gone further, arguing in the Weekly Standard: “The inconvenience of one or more terms at the Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices — even through an intervening midterm election — pales in comparison with the repercussions of making a bad selection. It’s worth the fight, and worth the wait.”
Conservative legal scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen says the court could get along fine with eight justices. “What do you do with ties, in the meantime?” he wrote in the National Review. “Again, there’s an easy answer. The Court has a standard practice about what to do in such situations, and it is a sound one: it leaves the judgment of the lower court alone. Ties go to the winner in the ‘court below,’ but without setting a national precedent. This has happened many, many times in our nation’s history, and the republic still stands.”
[Consider this]
Leaving a seat open indefinitely may not seem like a big deal. After all, justices recuse themselves from time to time, and the Constitution doesn’t say anything about needing nine. But partisans should take note: Thanks to a wealth of recent Democratic appointments on the lower courts, letting the Supreme Court go down to eight justices would favor liberals. Conservatives wouldn’t like the regime of liberal rulings that would govern in most of the nation without Supreme Court oversight. And the prospect of liberal dominance may actually stiffen the spine of the historically more accommodating Senate Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...828dce-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
Conservative law professors Josh Blackman and Randy Barnett have gone further, arguing in the Weekly Standard: “The inconvenience of one or more terms at the Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices — even through an intervening midterm election — pales in comparison with the repercussions of making a bad selection. It’s worth the fight, and worth the wait.”
Conservative legal scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen says the court could get along fine with eight justices. “What do you do with ties, in the meantime?” he wrote in the National Review. “Again, there’s an easy answer. The Court has a standard practice about what to do in such situations, and it is a sound one: it leaves the judgment of the lower court alone. Ties go to the winner in the ‘court below,’ but without setting a national precedent. This has happened many, many times in our nation’s history, and the republic still stands.”
[Consider this]
Leaving a seat open indefinitely may not seem like a big deal. After all, justices recuse themselves from time to time, and the Constitution doesn’t say anything about needing nine. But partisans should take note: Thanks to a wealth of recent Democratic appointments on the lower courts, letting the Supreme Court go down to eight justices would favor liberals. Conservatives wouldn’t like the regime of liberal rulings that would govern in most of the nation without Supreme Court oversight. And the prospect of liberal dominance may actually stiffen the spine of the historically more accommodating Senate Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...828dce-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
And what would the excuse be for taking much longer this time than usual?
Cite where it says that must vote.
Again, you're simply wanting the Senate to be a pro forma body to do Obama's bidding. They don't need an excuse if they do not consent to the nominee.
And what do they call a president in his last term, especially the last year?
If they don't vote, we would eventually not have a Supreme Court.
They should hold a vote, let the elected officials have a say, instead of playing politics.
LMFAO. You can't back up your claim so you make a ridiculous logical fallacy.
Where does it say they are required to vote? All it says is with the advice and consent. Nowhere does it say they must hold a vote. SCOTUS has always been political, it is part of the political system we have. Remember court packing?
How is it a logical fallacy? It's simple fact.
Ok, so no vote, I guess the appointment should just be automatic, without a vote consent must be assumed.