|
Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate will confirm the nomination?
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
moths posted:Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate will confirm the nomination? advise and consent. THe failure to provide either advice or consent should have been forced as a recess or dereliction of duty, and even if it was a recess appointment that was temporary, re-appoint him every day until the process is followed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
moths posted:Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate will confirm the nomination? This is the exact language used: quote:[The President] […] by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint […] Judges of the Supreme Court This has always been interpreted to mean that Senate consent is a hard requirement of appointments.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
moths posted:Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate will confirm the nomination? "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ...," but the shall there refers to the President.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
The 2014 NLRB case shut down Obama's ability to functionally move recess appointments iirc.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Quorums actually defined as majority of those duly chosen and sworn (Senate Rules VI), so for that brief period between terms the quorum requirement is only 34. Kalman posted:I think the key is that everything McConnell has done has been legal, if not legitimate. The proposals for getting Garland on are the opposite - legitimate, but not legal. Eh if the court rules it's legal then it's legal or at least as legal as Bush v Gore Who can tell them no? There weren't 67 votes to impeach
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This has always been interpreted to mean that Senate consent is a hard requirement of appointments. This reasoning seems thinner than the abortion thing. Just say the Senate consented and force them to make the case that they didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This is the exact language used: The argument that he'd make is that if the senate is withholding its consent they could simply hold a vote to say that but they didn't. Is it a slam dunk no, but it's not complete nonsense either and it doesn't matter anyway because 5 justices can rule however they want no matter how partisan the intent or flimsy the reasoning (Bush v Gore)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh ok then it might work, the majority can use the nuclear option to rewrite all the other rules or suspend them. The office of Majority Leader isn't in the Constitution Nuclear option requires you to have the floor to actually trigger the nuclear option; if they don't have the floor, they can never request the necessary rule change. And since McConnell remained majority leader at that moment, he simply would have not recognized any Dems until the critical moment was past. e: Also, I don't think you'd have had 5 votes to keep Garland on the court if they'd ignored the Senate - you really think Breyer or RBG would have gone along with it?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nuclear option requires you to have the floor to actually trigger the nuclear option; if they don't have the floor, they can never request the necessary rule change. The senate rules aren't real, they aren't in the constitution, and the constitution says the majority sets its own rules not Robert's loving Rules Of Order Kalman posted:e: Also, I don't think you'd have had 5 votes to keep Garland on the court if they'd ignored the Senate - you really think Breyer or RBG would have gone along with it? No I said that, liberals on the court wouldn't go along with it even if it's legitimate because it's not nice, meanwhile Republicans stole a supreme court seat even though that wasn't nice, and also stole an election even though it wasn't legitimate or even legal because gently caress you, and that's why they control the court and liberals don't and now the liberals' life's work is being unwound. But it's something the Democrats could have done if they had the will to govern and the spine to stand up to Republicans wiping their rear end with legitimacy and decorum in order to win. But they don't so they didn't, and their ideology is reaching its logical conclusion of utter powerlessness and defeat
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:e: Also, I don't think you'd have had 5 votes to keep Garland on the court if they'd ignored the Senate - you really think Breyer or RBG would have gone along with it? Seems like it goes without saying that the liberals wouldn't have done any of the stuff we're suggesting they should have done, or they would've done it already and we wouldn't need to discuss it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also, I don't think you'd have had 5 votes to keep Garland on the court if they'd ignored the Senate - you really think Breyer or RBG would have gone along with it? Blowing a revolutionary opportunity to remake the judiciary and affirm the principles of justice and liberty for a generation in order to seat a single milquetoast moderate seems entirely up their alley, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Recess appontment. Would have expired long before now, and I think they still had pro forma sessions blocking recess appointments going anyway. e;f, missed a page.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Pro forma sessions can't actually block the president from appointing someone and that someone from moving into that vacant office and doing poo poo because they aren't mind control, it's just that someone who has standing can sue to say that whoever is exercising power over them wasn't lawfully appointed and the court will say "yeah under Canning v NLRB you weren't lawfully appointed get the gently caress out", unless the court decides not to say that and makes an exception or reverses Canning in a 5-4 decision with Garland delivering the opinion of the court. Yes Canning was unanimous, and changing all their opinions on it to keep a seat from being stolen is undecorous but so is stealing a seat so what are liberals' priorities here (well we all know). Constitution is pretty cut and dry that recess appointments only last until the next session though so you'd have to hope that Obama doing something besides going "oh hm ok I won't appoint a justice I guess" would have played better in the election, and ymmv on that
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Another option would be to replace the court itself, or simply the responsibilities of the court, which would leave the judges sitting on a vestigial court. It would certainly be exciting to have the Supreme Court be recognized as one set of jurists or another, depending on who's in which office. Productive, maybe not. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Recess appontment. The Senate wasn't ever in recess long enough for Obama to do this. PerniciousKnid posted:6 of 9 SCOTUS judges were appointed by the party that got the most votes in 1 of the last 9 national elections. Doesn't seem very legitimate, even if you assume that the government in general is legitimate. Only Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Take your pick which one of those three shouldn't be there because of failure to abide by constitutional conventions for Garland.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Also Roberts and Alito were put in by a guy that originally lost the popular vote and the electoral college if SCOTUS hadn't stopped the recount. Only Breyer, Sotomayor, Thomas and Kagan were put on legit. Though Thomas has also disqualified himself by being a sexual harasser and, you know, attempting to overthrow the government with armed insurrection.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
The “by and with” language always made me scratch my head. A strong enough reading would be “by the advice and with the consent” which to me implies a senate would advise a president to nominate a candidate and then the senate again would have power to consent, rendering the president’s role perfunctory. I also felt like the Vice president would be able to at least force a vote as a nuclear option to the filibuster but “norms” I guess. Obama’s real failure was not hanging garland around the GOP’s neck. The whole point of his nomination was that he was someone McConnell had already said would be acceptable. Obama failed to make the case that the GOP was and still is acting in bad faith and that the consequences of that act would be the repeal of Roe where we are now. Really similar to how he folded on single payer so quickly imho
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:This reasoning seems thinner than the abortion thing. Just say the Senate consented and force them to make the case that they didn't. 'Lack of objection is consent by default, impeach me if you have a problem with it'. Not that Obama would in a million years have the balls to break decorum that badly.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Only Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Take your pick which one of those three shouldn't be there because of failure to abide by constitutional conventions for Garland. what, are you asking us to cheer the wisdom and democratic nature of the electoral college god grant us NPVIC so that the bullshit system i wrote my (mandatory for a grade) letter to a national rep as child about be finally destroyed if nothing else iirc my VA rep('s interns) penned a nice "well HRRM HRRM IN OUR GREAT DEMOCRATIC TRADITION THAT WE CANNOT DISCARD ON A WHIM..." response
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Only Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Take your pick which one of those three shouldn't be there because of failure to abide by constitutional conventions for Garland. Bush not only lost the popular vote, he likely would have lost the EC if the conservative SCOTUS hadn't handed him the win. His 2004 election is irrelevant in that context, since it was a direct consequence of his presidency (and "can't change horse mid stream" war crimes). E: But Thomas is totally there "legitimately", lol!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Bush not only lost the popular vote, he likely would have lost the EC if the conservative SCOTUS hadn't handed him the win. His 2004 election is irrelevant in that context, since it was a direct consequence of his presidency (and "can't change horse mid stream" war crimes). Uh. Which Bush do you think nominated Thomas?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 08:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Uh. The one that won the popular vote in his election, but I can see how it could be read as linked to the previous sentences about W. Thomas is the only conservative justice not nominated by a president who's presidency hinged on winning the EC while losing the popular voted. The quotes on "legitimate" are because of his sexual harassment and subsequent circus (thanks Biden!). Also his wife is an insurrectionist.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 08:45
|
|
Stickman posted:The one that won the popular vote in his election, but I can see how it could be read as linked to the previous sentences about W. Thomas is the only conservative justice not nominated by a president who's presidency hinged on winning the EC while losing the popular voted. Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for?
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 08:49
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? gently caress off Nazi. GaussianCopula posted:So I get the only healthy offspring while you guys create lefty-gene defect babies? GaussianCopula posted:So the crime statistics for Germany 2016 came out today, the first full year after the massive influx of refugees. Some key stats: GaussianCopula posted:Why do you believe this? quote:Those refugees are NOT fleeing ISIS. They could stay in Turkey, where the last time I checked ISIS is not in power. Additionally there are a lot of refugees that do not flee from Syria or Iraq and therefore have nothing to do with ISIS. Catpetter1981 fucked around with this message at 08:59 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 08:53
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? Glad to have someone with quite the few probations and bans for being racist come in to tell us that that in America landowners with more land having more voting power is good.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:It would certainly be exciting to have the Supreme Court be recognized as one set of jurists or another, depending on who's in which office. Productive, maybe not. Certainly more productive than allowing the status quo to continue destabilizing the country. There is no system that is immune to being reformed by a motivated Congressional majority. Our current one is, and any alternative also would be.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 10:09
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? This is a fundamentally immoral and antidemocratic concept that is thankfully being consigned to the dustbin of history. If your only interest is power politics, then it doesn't have the veneer of popular legitimacy and is simply another system of oligarchy to be defeated like the rest.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 10:22
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? No it doesn’t, shitheel. Also, I was just born here. Not that “urban vs rural” is the a relevant “balance” anyway, it’s just the one that massively favors your team (in the Senate anyway, the EC is biased because big blue states are bluer than big red states are red). Stickman fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 10:46
|
|
|
Thomas also illustrates that how random the Court's makeup is - if Marshall hadn't gotten sick he retires under Clinton and there isn't a conservative majority to steal 2000 for Bush.GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? Never quite understood posting to serve yourself up as a Fisher Price hoop for everyone to dunk on.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Playing with words, as is his birthright
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:26
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:what, are you asking us to cheer the wisdom and democratic nature of the electoral college I was talking about the popular vote, which is why I mentioned the popular vote and not the electoral college. Stickman posted:His 2004 election is irrelevant in that context Handwaving reality away is not an actual counterargument. There are no sitting justices who were appointed between January 20, 2001, and January 20, 2005. Kaal posted:Certainly more productive than allowing the status quo to continue destabilizing the country. There is no system that is immune to being reformed by a motivated Congressional majority. Our current one is, and any alternative also would be. I was talking about a situation where a Republican president would just recognize the replaced Supreme Court as the "real" Supreme Court, and ignore the reconstituted one.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:26
|
|
|
Or if Democrats simply hadn't confirmed him, as Republicans weren't stupid enough to do when they had a chance to steal a 5-4 majority
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:26
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I was talking about a situation where a Republican president would just recognize the replaced Supreme Court as the "real" Supreme Court, and ignore the reconstituted one. Bush is not the president to appoint Alito and Roberts if 2000 wasn't stolen.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush is not the president to appoint Alito and Roberts if 2000 wasn't stolen. Bush won the popular vote in 2004, as described above. You're just moving the goalposts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I was talking about a situation where a Republican president would just recognize the replaced Supreme Court as the "real" Supreme Court, and ignore the reconstituted one. The power to ordain courts is given to Congress, not the president. So what you're suggesting explicitly violates Article III. But beyond that, I am not afraid of a popularly-elected government (to the meager extent that the presidency reflects this) wielding authority over the courts. That is, indeed, a fundamental part of a free and just society. America cannot long abide a half-democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That bill's written with such a bad understanding of reproduction as a biological process that it would make most forms of contraceptive that aren't condoms arguably murder. The Supreme Court of the Talibangelical States of America find nothing wrong with that section. Maybe you should Love Jesus more? Sydin posted:https://twitter.com/ProtestaBloc/status/1521328439759761408 That US protests (against white ruling power) have historically stayed peaceful means a lot of people have had it easy. I hope Kavanaugh lives the rest of his life in pants-making GBS threads fear if he wants to make nakedly partisan rulings like this. Same for any other justice. GaussianCopula posted:That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. I admire your dedication to this gimmick but you're taking it a bit far now. The GOP decided Alito would go on the SCOTUS because he will give them what they want and no matter how bad his justifications are the rest of the country will accept it. He's smart in the way that Ted "I'll read Green Eggs and Ham to filibuster a bill I don't like" Cruz is smart.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:49
|
|
has it easy.
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for? The electoral college system was created primarily due the to the demands of slave-dependent states wanting to ensure their can't-vote slave populations still counted as political power on a federal level. The "constitutional system" also never let the popular vote determine State Senators, didn't give women the right to vote, didn't give minorities the right to vote, didn't give poor people the right to vote, yet here we are. Additionally, small rural states are essentially all non-competitive (except NH), and rarely effect the outcome of an election. And because of the EC these states go entirely ignored during campaigning along with pretty much every other state that isn't purple, because in America the only states that matter are swing states. Arkage fucked around with this message at 13:54 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Bush won the popular vote in 2004, as described above. You're just moving the goalposts. He doesn't win that election without being the incumbent.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Bush won the popular vote in 2004, as described above. You're just moving the goalposts. Seizing power by fiat, purging the voter rolls, and then being "re-elected" does not confer popular legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:Bush won the popular vote in 2004, as described above. You're just moving the goalposts. If all 9 justices on the 2022 court were coincidentally appointed by a Republican right after 2004, despite Democrat majorities in every other national election in the last thirty years, do you think that is legitimate? The answer may reveal your political views!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 14:11
|
|