Should President Obama appoint Merrick Garland?

Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...
it's not the "disagreement" it would be the appointment without advise and consent that is impeachable.
That would be a clear violation of expressed Constitutional powers.
Meaning there is no need for adjudication, and the injured party ( Congress) would use it's expressed powers to impeach rather then risk a court case

Disagreements (sic) in terms of un- enumerated executive powers are usually not heard by SCOTUS. I think this one came up from the appellate courts:
link --> United States v. Texas

But that's not based on enumerated powers - the question is Obama "legislating" due to the size and scope of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

link -->Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

The scenario you were proposing in other words doesn't require courts - because the remedy is already expressly written into the Constitution.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I meant the Senate.
Where does it state a time period that they have to do the advise and consent?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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?
Click to expand...

It would only seem that way, to someone who is phising.

Why doesn't the President then claim that the Senate is acting illegally and file a suit?

The only reason you're going this route is because you're praying that a liberal leaning SC would rule IN IT"S OWN FAVOR.
You're not that subtle or slick. :D
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only argued by someone who is so desperate that they feel an entitlement to get what they want.

Show where the Constitution lays down a time line of the Advise and Consent.
 
Leonthecat said:
The constitution assumes the Senate will abide by, and honor their oath, and fulfill their duties.
I guess the framers never met turtle boy, huh?
Click to expand...

Since this is your stance; then you'll be able to show where the Constitution states "assumption", in regards to this argument.

We could also draw the conclusion that the Constitution "assumes" that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means exactly that and anything that lessens it, is unconstitutional. :chesh:
 
USRACIST said:
Since this is your stance; then you'll be able to show where the Constitution states "assumption", in regards to this argument.

We could also draw the conclusion that the Constitution "assumes" that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means exactly that and anything that lessens it, is unconstitutional. :chesh:
Click to expand...

The constitution calls for the Senate to take an oath doesn't it? There is a pretty good case that, if someone is asked to swear that they will do something, it is assumed they will. Wouldn't you say?

BTW, guns save lives Ma'am.
 
Leonthecat said:
The constitution calls for the Senate to take an oath doesn't it? There is a pretty good case that, if someone is asked to swear that they will do something, it is assumed they will. Wouldn't you say?

BTW, guns save lives Ma'am.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't address the question of where does it state an "assumption"?

As to the debate regarding guns, I'm glad your finally learning; Peon. :D
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Only argued by someone who is so desperate that they feel an entitlement to get what they want.

Show where the Constitution lays down a time line of the Advise and Consent.
Click to expand...
it doesn't. I'm saying there's a legal basis to claim that the Senate has waived it's right to advise and consent after a reasonable amount of time has passed and that the President can proceed to appoint his nominee and that would either force the Senate to have a hearing and vote on the nominee or risk losing a court battle brought about by their unconstitutional and irresponsible behavior.

The GOP Senators would deserve it too.

My point here is that the If the President were to do so then it would be the Judiciary that determine who's action is unconstitutional, the Senate or the President, and my guess is that the Judiciary would rule in a manner that would preserve its constitutional independence.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
It's injectng partisan politics into the judicial branch and making it subservient to the legislative branch electoral politics.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

But you didn't seem to have a problem when the President injects partisan politics into the Legislative branch and making it subservient to the Executive branch.

Face it Mott.
You've jumped the shark and have swallowed the liberal agenda, HOOK, LINE, and SINKER.

man-hooked.jpg
 
USRACISTDOUCHEBAG said:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
.

Face it Mott.
You've jumped the shark and have swallowed the liberal agenda, HOOK, LINE, and SINKER.

http://strength4thejourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/man-hooked.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Oh noes. She called you a "librull" Mott.
Whatever will you do?
Click to expand...
 
1.Congress would impeach if POTUS appointed without advise and consent. It has those expressed powers.
2.There is no "reasonable time"..there is political time, but nothing in the Constitution otherwise.
3.There isn't any Legislative veto..it doesn't exist.
4.The courts wouldn't act without a party with standing (congress) challenging POTUS - I doubt they would act all -
referring instead to impeachment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top