|
axeil posted:Yeah, the issue is the Constitution doesn't really have a remedy for "acting in bad faith." Exactly. Which is exactly why an 8-person SCOTUS will be the new standard if Hillary's coattails can't hand the Senate to the Democrats.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Fire Comey, don’t replace him till the there’s a replacement justice. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Fire Comey, don’t replace him till the there’s a replacement justice. Judicial appointment is received by a different senatorial committee than FBI appt, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Judicial appointment is received by a different senatorial committee than FBI appt, no? No, both go through Judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Wouldn't matter if it was different committees, since the president could just say "I'm not even nominating someone for X until you assholes do your job and address Y first."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
The ATF didn't have an official director from 2006-2013, so I'm not sure it would slow their roll. There would just be a series of Deputy Directors (Acting Directors).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Ice Cream Barbara posted:Packingham v. North Carolina has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, and it's an election year. How so? It raises a mildly interesting constitutional issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Exactly. Which is exactly why an 8-person SCOTUS will be the new standard if Hillary's coattails can't hand the Senate to the Democrats. What I've been wondering is if you do recess appointments to have a majority, or if you leave it tied to ratchet up pressure because recess appointments make the stories go away and lets your control be reversed the instant you lose an election. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:SCOTUS just stayed an execution (Arkansas) -- isn't that super rare? What happened this time? Just wanted to add here that Roberts seems to be making an effort to return the "courtesy fifth" (which the conservatives, including Scalia, have been breaking from in recent years). The four liberals voted to review, Roberts disagreed, but granted the 5th vote anyways. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/794483901708337153
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What I've been wondering is if you do recess appointments to have a majority, or if you leave it tied to ratchet up pressure because recess appointments make the stories go away and lets your control be reversed the instant you lose an election. Step 1: Recess appointment Step 2: 5-4 decision to find Senate in dereliction of duty Step 3: Permanent appointment
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Wouldn't matter if it was different committees, since the president could just say "I'm not even nominating someone for X until you assholes do your job and address Y first." At this point all that will do is make is so we don't have an FBI director.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Exactly. Which is exactly why an 8-person SCOTUS will be the new standard if Hillary's coattails can't hand the Senate to the Democrats. I'd love it if Dems win the Senate and Hillary took this as an excuse to say "Oh, you don't agree with a 9 justice court? Fine, I'll be filling 7 vacancies then"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
If the Dems take the Senate and Hilary wins I'm curious how many held up appointments the GOP is going to pass so that Clinton doesn't come in to office and immediately fill dozens (hundreds?) of vacancies the GOP has been forcing for years now, even without getting to the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Step 1: Recess appointment Assuming that the senate can be in "dereliction of duty" (it can't, because the senate is constitutionally empowered to set its own rules), who has standing to sue them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Wouldn't any 'dereliction of duty' thing before the SC get punted as a political issue that isn't expressly illegal or unconstitutional anyway? Like the answer is 'pass a constitutional amendment or at least a law forcing consideration within a set period of time.' Which will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
It's entirely a political question. The senate as a body has refused consent to the presidents nominee. The political solution is for the senate and the president to find a compromise candidate. It's a political impasse, not a constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
You assume that the GOP will give any Democratic candidate a hearing. Which they are already getting ready to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Great job assuming voters would kick people out of office for these stunts, founding fathers. You guys way over estimated our intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Great job assuming voters would kick people out of office for these stunts, founding fathers. You guys way over estimated our intelligence. The founding fathers assumed the people didn't get a say in either the presidency or the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Wouldn't any 'dereliction of duty' thing before the SC get punted as a political issue that isn't expressly illegal or unconstitutional anyway? Depends on how pissed off the Supreme Court gets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the Dems take the Senate and Hilary wins I'm curious how many held up appointments the GOP is going to pass so that Clinton doesn't come in to office and immediately fill dozens (hundreds?) of vacancies the GOP has been forcing for years now, even without getting to the SCOTUS. You mean Obama's appointments?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Assuming that the senate can be in "dereliction of duty" (it can't, because the senate is constitutionally empowered to set its own rules), who has standing to sue them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I have a certain amount of trouble summoning much vitriol about this; if anyone who breaks ranks to confirm is gonna be out on their rear end in the next primary, they are indeed obeying the will of the people they represent, who don't want a democrat-appointed justice to replace a conservative one. It's rather my belief that the problem lies in that a single committee of a tiny fraction of the voting body can bottle up any issue and keep it from a straight up vote on a whim like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Great job assuming voters would kick people out of office for these stunts, founding fathers. You guys way over estimated our intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Wouldn't any 'dereliction of duty' thing before the SC get punted as a political issue that isn't expressly illegal or unconstitutional anyway? There is already a law that requires 9 justices on the SCOTUS and the Senate outright refusing to even consider a nominee is an active violation of said law. Considering the country is definitely harmed by a SCOTUS that keeps having 4-4 results there'd be standing to sue, surely? The courts would still probably punt though. duz posted:You mean Obama's appointments? Yes. As much as the GOP hates Obama I can't imagine they want to deal with a chance of Clinton getting to immediately fill tons of vacancies if she has a friendly Senate.  THE CLINTON GOVERNMENT MACHINE is going to be a far worse thing to them than evil kenyan muslim commie obummer's picks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:How so? It raises a mildly interesting constitutional issue. A felony for browsing Facebook is nuts. I can't believe this would even be an issue but here we are I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There is already a law that requires 9 justices on the SCOTUS and the Senate outright refusing to even consider a nominee is an active violation of said law. Considering the country is definitely harmed by a SCOTUS that keeps having 4-4 results there'd be standing to sue, surely? The courts would still probably punt though. The same law set the quorum implying business can still be done with fewer than the complete number of justices. Paraphrasing someone else said in the thread, there's no constitution provision for acting in bad faith. This is a political question and political brinkmanship. There's no legal or constitutional question here at all unless we were to lose another 3 justices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Let's simply let the justices die out and dispense with this notion of courts, supreme or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure "keeping democrats from filling Scalia's seat with anyone to the left of Scalia" is what Republican voters actually want though, sort of like how "fill Scalia's seat with someone who will tilt the balance of the Court as far left as possible for as long as possible" is what D&D wants. Whether on not they should want said things is a different conversation. But a functioning nomination process would seemingly lead to mostly moderates being nominated right? It seems like the threat of obstruction just leads to a stronger desire to get in the most whatever candidate you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
the constitution doesn't state how the senate gives consent, and the president can just say "by not saying no you consented" and do a jerking off motion with his/her hand
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the constitution doesn't state how the senate gives consent, and the president can just say "by not saying no you consented" and do a jerking off motion with his/her hand SCOTUS probably wouldn’t buy that argument at the moment, but let a couple more vacancies go unfilled and they would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the constitution doesn't state how the senate gives consent, and the president can just say "by not saying no you consented" and do a jerking off motion with his/her hand Too bad 200+ years of constitutional practice belies this argument
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Too bad 200+ years of constitutional practice belies this argument there's never been a pocket veto of any nominee
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:there's never been a pocket veto of any nominee There not what you were talking about
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There not what you were talking about yes it is
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes. As much as the GOP hates Obama I can't imagine they want to deal with a chance of Clinton getting to immediately fill tons of vacancies if she has a friendly Senate. It is true that they should be beginning the transition to wistfully wishing they had someone reasonable, like [previous Democratic President]. They were just so much more reasonable than [current Democratic President]. I mean, they were wrong, but they were so willing to compromise and consider the position of the Republicans, unlike the current tyrant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:yes it is Whatever you win It's not justiciable anyways
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:SCOTUS probably wouldn’t buy that argument at the moment, but let a couple more vacancies go unfilled and they would. I think the GOP is banking on the next vacancy being RBG. Then they can "compromise" and approve one conservative and one liberal justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the GOP is banking on the next vacancy being RBG. Then they can "compromise" and approve one conservative and one liberal justice. Just like how conservative Rehnquist and liberal O’Connor were replaced by conservative Roberts and liberal Alito.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:Just like how conservative Rehnquist and liberal O’Connor were replaced by conservative Roberts and liberal Alito. quote:Initially, her voting record aligned closely with the conservative William Rehnquist (voting with him 87% of the time her first three years at the Court).[34] From that time until 1998 O'Connor's alignment with Rehnquist ranged from 93.4% to 63.2%, hitting above 90% in three of those years.[35] In nine of her first sixteen years on the Court, O'Connor voted with Rehnquist more than with any other justice.[35]
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:38
|
|
