Balancing the Supreme Court

[Concart]

Sure they can. If you don't like your Senators and Representatives, vote them out, recall them or otherwise pressure them to act as you want.

They can, but the action violates the Constitution. Yes, we should vote them out. That does not change the fact that their role is enshrined in the Constitution, and they abdicated that role.

 

[Yakuda]

They can, but the action violates the Constitution. Yes, we should vote them out. That does not change the fact that their role is enshrined in the Constitution, and they abdicated that role.

You still haven't provided support for your claim from the constitution

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.

What is the definition of 'Constitutional?'

Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

If this doesn't motivate liberals to vote Trump out nothing will. Conservatives now have what they want. No reason for them to vote to make anything happen. It already happened.

Agreed about Liberals voting, not so much about Conservatives not caring about the election.

Like all politically partisan people, neither side will give up until they have complete power and authority over the United States of America.

 

[Concart]

Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.

There is nothing in the constitution about the size of the court. In fact, the constitution is not silent on this, it says that Congress is responsible for organizing the court. The Senate is charged with an Advice and Consent role, BY THE CONSTITUTION. How can you possibly argue that it is constitutional to ignore that role? Sorry, but that's just laughable.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



What is the definition of 'Constitutional"

Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.

Letter of the law. While I agree to adhering to the "spirit", as the nomination of Amy Barrett proved, the Democrats don't give a shit about that either.

Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten every generation or so.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is nothing in the constitution about the size of the court. In fact, the constitution is not silent on this, it says that Congress is responsible for organizing the court. The Senate is charged with an Advice and Consent role, BY THE CONSTITUTION. How can you possibly argue that it is constitutional to ignore that role? Sorry, but that's just laughable.

Correct. It's up to Congress. I'm not arguing that the Senate should ignore anything. You're the one advocating that the Senate violated the Constitution but you've failed to make your case.

 

[Concart]

Correct. It's up to Congress. I'm not arguing that the Senate should ignore anything. You're the one advocating that the Senate violated the Constitution but you've failed to make your case.

So, I showed you the appointments clause of the Constitution. The Senate did not fulfill that role. What exactly would you call that failure to act? Please.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, it is.

".. and [the President] 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,..."

The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.

They chose not move with the nomination and, per the Constitution, they were legal to do so. Morally not so much.

 

[Concart]

They chose not move with the nomination and, per the Constitution, they were legal to do so. Morally not so much.

So, if Congress passes a law that bans all newspapers, it isn't unconstitutional. Got it. Who cares about that pesky document, Congress can do whatever they want. Cool.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So, I showed you the appointments clause of the Constitution. The Senate did not fulfill that role. What exactly would you call that failure to act? Please.

The Senate advised and consented not to consider the nomination in an election year. Legal. With Barrett they advised and consented to consider the nomination. Legal. Moral? Not much.

Here's your logic:
1 - Republicans are wrong.
2 - My proof: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3 - Democrats are allowed to be wrong too.

All you are doing is pushing tit-for-tat partisan politics like the Republicans are doing. There's a reason why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats and why 70% of Americans aren't Republicans. Both parties suck ass and serve themselves first, not the American public.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So, if Congress passes a law that bans all newspapers, it isn't unconstitutional. Got it. Who cares about that pesky document, Congress can do whatever they want. Cool.

Dude, you're reaching. Was the Justice seat filled or not?

 

[Yakuda]

So, if Congress passes a law that bans all newspapers, it isn't unconstitutional. Got it. Who cares about that pesky document, Congress can do whatever they want. Cool.

Do you have a right to newspapers? The court decides whether or not a law violates the constitution.

 

[Yakuda]

The Senate advised and consented not to consider the nomination in an election year. Legal. With Barrett they advised and consented to consider the nomination. Legal. Moral? Not much.

Here's your logic:
1 - Republicans are wrong.
2 - My proof: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3 - Democrats are allowed to be wrong too.

All you are doing is pushing tit-for-tat partisan politics like the Republicans are doing. There's a reason why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats and why 70% of Americans aren't Republicans. Both parties suck ass and serve themselves first, not the American public.

Why is it "immoral"?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you have a right to newspapers? The court decides whether or not a law violates the constitution.

We all have a First Amendment right.

Concart's error is conflating eliminating a right with a Senate choice that he didn't like.

Better to consider how Obamacare was implemented. Was it Constitutional? Yes. Was it in the "spirit" of the Constitution? No.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why is it "immoral"?

Because the Republicans are being hypocritical. Do you consider hypocrisy to be immoral? I do.

 

[CFM]

Do you have a right to newspapers? The court decides whether or not a law violates the constitution.

The 1st amendment says freedom of the press. Lefties, on other issues, have indicated they believe no right is absolute. Perhaps that's only on those they don't want exercised but on things they support it's unlimited.

 

[CFM]

Because the Republicans are being hypocritical. Do you consider hypocrisy to be immoral? I do.

The left has constantly screamed that one person/group pushing their/his or her morals on others is wrong. They do when it comes to things like same sex marriage, abortion, and any other left wing agenda items.

Wouldn't claiming something is immoral now being pushing morals on someone else? Why is it OK now?

 

[CFM]

We all have a First Amendment right.

Concart's error is conflating eliminating a right with a Senate choice that he didn't like.

Better to consider how Obamacare was implemented. Was it Constitutional? Yes. Was it in the "spirit" of the Constitution? No.

Are you saying it's unlimited?

 

[Yakuda]

We all have a First Amendment right.

Concart's error is conflating eliminating a right with a Senate choice that he didn't like.

Better to consider how Obamacare was implemented. Was it Constitutional? Yes. Was it in the "spirit" of the Constitution? No.

Yeah so what?

Concarts error is he is a child and having a tantrum.

That may be different than it's not "moral".