|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Which is completely their right. Sorry, but what they say goes. So you feel that part of the constitutional power of confirmation is just flat denial of anyone at all?
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:is there any horsetrading to be done here? not that i see obama dealing, but just curious I guess they MIGHT consider voting on Obama's nominee if Obama agreed to admit he is a secret Kenyan Muslim who hates America, and then resigned after implicating Hillary in a huge scandal. But they'd still vote against whoever it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So you feel that part of the constitutional power of confirmation is just flat denial of anyone at all? I can't see how it wouldn't be. Where does it say they eventually have to settle on somebody?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Obama will be speaking at 8:30 EST
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
oh boy preempting the debate this is loving nuts
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Obama gonna speech at 8:35 Should of really trolled Republicans and do it during the debate
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I can't see how it wouldn't be. Where does it say they eventually have to settle on somebody? Wasn't it Cheney who said something of the effect of "There is nothing in the constitution that says there has to be nine people on the supreme court, we could just have the chief justice there stamping things" during one of the nomination fights? I mean the reason there are 9 is because of a law that set it at that number, if we are going full out crazy congress could just pass a law setting it at 8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So you feel that part of the constitutional power of confirmation is just flat denial of anyone at all? Yes. The power to confirm implicitly grants the negative power to not confirm. Furthermore, there is nothing saying they have to explicitly confirm in a timely manner. Other positions have been unconfirmed for even longer than Scalia's spot will be, and denying a confirmation vote to those positions was no less constitutional. Otherwise a suit surely would have been filed long ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:oh boy preempting the debate this is loving nuts
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:Obama gonna speech at 8:35 He's hitting the before slot to prime the rage machine for maximum white hot knee jerk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Obama will be speaking at 8:30 EST It will, of course, change nothing, but I applaud him for trying (and inevitably failing) to get Americans to listen to why timely confirmations are sort of important!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:I hope Trollbama shows up to start nominating the most outrageous picks for Supreme Court Justice; like not even actual judge nominees Supreme Court Justice Kanye West, you say? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
aww yeah, the good poo poo: https://twitter.com/tbogg/status/698677022449471491
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/698675628212486144
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So you feel that part of the constitutional power of confirmation is just flat denial of anyone at all? yes. The check would be the people voting out the Senators responsible. If they re-elect them, then the people consented to obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wasn't it Cheney who said something of the effect of "There is nothing in the constitution that says there has to be nine people on the supreme court, we could just have the chief justice there stamping things" during one of the nomination fights? Sure but the power of appointing justices is clearly intended to be equally distributed between the two branches. Imagine Trump and a Democratic senate. Do they have to confirm the 10th pro wrestler because they didn't like the first 9 he nominated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wasn't it Cheney who said something of the effect of "There is nothing in the constitution that says there has to be nine people on the supreme court, we could just have the chief justice there stamping things" during one of the nomination fights? iirc the law question sets the upper limit at 9, there doesn't always have to be 9 but I think you need a couple for a quorum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Obama will be speaking at 8:30 EST I really wish he'd waited until 9pm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I don't wanna say "I'm glad he's dead" but... Guys I'm glad the most conservative justice is no longer serving on the Supreme Court of this country
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Since about 1789. radical meme posted:227 years. Wasn't the Warren Court considered somewhat liberal? Honestly asking; I don't really know my Supreme Court history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:iirc the law question sets the upper limit at 9, there doesn't always have to be 9 but I think you need a couple for a quorum. The same act that caps it at 9 says that 6 is a quorum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Wasn't the Warren Court considered somewhat liberal? Honestly asking; I don't really know my Supreme Court history. On civil rights, yes, but the court has always been biased toward business interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
any streams for obama's speech? and how do you pronounce sri's full name?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I really wish he'd waited until 9pm. Same
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I really wish he'd waited until 9pm. Nah, this way he can pre-emptively poison the well for tonight's debate. The speech at 9 PM would have been funnier though
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I don't wanna say "I'm glad he's dead" but... I'll do it for you :I'm glad Scalia is dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Sri Srinivasan as the new judge? Of course Obummer would pick a Muslim to replace Scalia. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Huh weird. So you literally can't understand it? I found the killing of Osama to be a pretty hollow victory, and the scenes of cheering in the streets to be disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
lord obama now set to appear https://www.whitehouse.gov/live
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Wasn't the Warren Court considered somewhat liberal? Honestly asking; I don't really know my Supreme Court history. It was as close as we ever had due to, ya know things like the whole 'maybe stop segregating', but it had a lot of regressive pro-business interest things too. Brannock posted:Nah, this way he can pre-emptively poison the well for tonight's debate. The speech at 9 PM would have been funnier though Yea this is the less funny but more effective option that will hopefully blindside someone
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Ahahaha the aides are literally joking and LAUGHING in the background, watch that be huge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Hey, if you want to imagine peak loving insanity, what if 2016 ends up in perpetual recount like 2000 and goes to a 8 person Supreme Court to decide
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The Senate refused to confirm John Tyler's nominations for 27 months. ugh Republicans are just as terrible as ever i see
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Obama should nominate Berlusconi out of respect for Scalia's heritage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
I'm glad
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I really wish he'd waited until 9pm. He just might be doing that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Hey, if you want to imagine peak loving insanity, what if 2016 ends up in perpetual recount like 2000 and goes to a 8 person Supreme Court to decide 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
just heard that scalia is dead, im not unhappy at this turn of events
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I don't wanna say "I'm glad he's dead" but... Clarence Thomas is still breathing at last check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Ballz posted:Clarence Thomas is still breathing at last check. Without the host organism he'll soon wither
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:41
|
|