Should President Obama appoint Merrick Garland?

Mott the Hoople said:
That's an "opinion" on your part. There is a well established precedent that Constitutional rights can be waived by inaction. Not only that but what the Senate is doing amounts to an unconstitutional pocket veto and the Senate has no right to veto a Presidential nomination.

Since this is a legal question between the executive and legislative branch why are you afraid to have an independent judiciary adjudicate this legal question? POTUS would be on solid legal ground, according to legal precedent, that by failing to fulfill it's role to advise and consent that they have waived their right to advise and consent. Ego, your argument has no merit.
Click to expand...
gawd almighty..do you not know the difference between an individual Constitutional right ( say in the Bill of Rights) and proscribed Constitutional duties/requirements of the bodies of the US government? In somev ery limited instances individuals can 'waive' individual rights, but those are legal rights.
Constitutional enumerated rights are permanent and unchanghable ( constitutional enumerated rights are immutable)
unless amended..But we are not talking Constitution rights -rather duties


How can the Senate possible "waive" it's duty (notice I'm not saying it's 'right') -to advise and consent??
If it were to never act on a SCOTUS nomination..how in the f*ck can POTUS appoint that nominee?

AGAIN: LOOK AT THE TEXT: ARTICLE 2 - SECTION 2

"He 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....."
++

1.POTUS nominates . 2. Senate advice and consent = 3. an appointment.
++

..do you not see both independent actions are required? but neither separate coequal branch can force the other to do so?
nothing about "pocket vetos" ( and we've established veto power is a plenary power solely of the executive branch!!!)
++

'Ergo' My Lego :palm:
this is purely separation of powers..what is there to even bring to a court??
It is impossible for POTUS to appoint (not nominate) a juror to SCOTUS without the Senate's advice and consent.

It is also impossible for the Senate to advise and consent until POTUS nominates - so there can be no appointment..
That is straight up Constitutional duty and procedure - any judge appointed/sat/sworn in otherwise would never happen
and if it somehow did ( which it never could) would be gross malfeasance by the governing Body and subject to immediate impeachment and removal of the judge
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
And there's nothing to say that Congress has to give the President what he wants or that he can do anything about it. :D
Click to expand...

That is provided for in the constitution by voting a candidate for the SC down. But turtle boy thinks he doesn't need to.

He will pay for his stupidity in November.

BNTp0QgCcAAIIMa.jpg

Lol
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You didn't read my post carefully. I'm saying that the POTUS claim by moving forward with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS is that the Senate, by refusing to do it's duty, has "WAIVED" that right to advise and consent on the appointment.

There is legal precedent for the legal waiving of rights by inaction. That's a fact. If POTUS were to make an appointment on such a basis the Senates only recourse would be to file a suit in federal court against POTUS. So what's wrong with that? Isn't that the role of the Judiciary?
Click to expand...
with due respect..you are mixing up terms that have no meaning. the Senate cannot "waive" anything.
It either does it Constitutional duties, or it fails to do so. There is no Senate "rights" in play here, or in any hypothetical scenario.
The Senate does not have any Constitutional "rights" - it does have required duties to perform.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where have they declared that they're waiving the part of "advise and consent"?
Click to expand...
By they I assume you mean the President? He hasn't. I'm saying that would be the legal principle for the President to appoint Merrick Garland if the Senate refuses to do its Constitutional duty to advise and consent.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Because you appear to be trying to rewrite how this procedure is laying out in the Constitution.
Show me where it says Congress MUST do this and then show me where it says that the President can just take his ball and go home, when he's losing.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the other way around? The Senate has decided to take its ball and not play by refusing to advise and consent? A reasonable person could assume they have waived that right and proceed accordingly.

This is not in the constitution but the vast majority of our laws and legal principles are not in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is that the role of deciding what is or is not Constitutional belongs to the Judiciary.

So the President can make such an appointment. Obviously the Senate would argue that it's unconstitutional. That means the Judiciary would decide.

Obviously such a case would end up in a four to four SCOTUS. I wonder who the court would rule for?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So when Obama says he's not going to sign something, it means he's waived his responsibility.
HEY, I LIKE THIS IDEA. :good4u:
Click to expand...
No because the President has the Constitutional right to veto a law. That includes a pocket veto by just ignoring a bill and not signing it into law. Congress and the Senate does not have such a right and their decision not to advise and consent and do nothing and one can argue that this amounts to an Unconstitutional pocket veto by the Senate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good question and the same answer. Let POTUS file a federal suit against the Senate and let our independent judiciary decide as is outlined by the Constitution. Why are you afraid to have the Judicial branch of government perform it's Constitutional role?
Click to expand...

I think he should.......of course, by the time it comes to trial President Trump will have already nominated someone........
 
anatta said:
gawd almighty..do you not know the difference between an individual Constitutional right ( say in the Bill of Rights) and proscribed Constitutional duties/requirements of the bodies of the US government? In somev ery limited instances individuals can 'waive' individual rights, but those are legal rights.
Constitutional enumerated rights are permanent and unchanghable ( constitutional enumerated rights are immutable)
unless amended..But we are not talking Constitution rights -rather duties


How can the Senate possible "waive" it's duty (notice I'm not saying it's 'right') -to advise and consent??
If it were to never act on a SCOTUS nomination..how in the f*ck can POTUS appoint that nominee?

AGAIN: LOOK AT THE TEXT: ARTICLE 2 - SECTION 2

"He 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....."
++

1.POTUS nominates . 2. Senate advice and consent = 3. an appointment.
++

..do you not see both independent actions are required? but neither separate coequal branch can force the other to do so?
nothing about "pocket vetos" ( and we've established veto power is a plenary power solely of the executive branch!!!)
++

'Ergo' My Lego :palm:
this is purely separation of powers..what is there to even bring to a court??
It is impossible for POTUS to appoint (not nominate) a juror to SCOTUS without the Senate's advice and consent.

It is also impossible for the Senate to advise and consent until POTUS nominates - so there can be no appointment..
That is straight up Constitutional duty and procedure - any judge appointed/sat/sworn in otherwise would never happen
and if it somehow did ( which it never could) would be gross malfeasance by the governing Body and subject to immediate impeachment and removal of the judge
Click to expand...
Again, all lala land silliness. There is no impeachable offense for POTUS disagreeing with Congress on Constitutional principle. It happens quite regularly. Why all this dancing on the head of a pin to argue that the courts would not adjudicate such a disagreement? Now that's unconstitutional and irrational. Of course the Judiciary would adjudicate such a disagreement as our Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top