Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Constitution Does Not Require the Senate to Vote on a Nomination
Weekly Standard ^ | February 14, 2016 | Adam J. White

Posted on 02/14/2016 5:50:00 PM PST by SMGFan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last
To: butterdezillion

almost makes you want to play poker with him LOL - all those tells probably is lousy poker player


61 posted on 02/14/2016 10:58:36 PM PST by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

“Two words: Miguel Estrada.”

BINGO!

Schumer would not even allow Miguel Estrada’s nomination to go to the floor for an up, or down, vote. Shameful.

Miguel Estrada put a hold on his life for around a year, maybe more, but finally had to go on with his life. Schumer did not want the Republicans picking a Hispanic who would probably become a SCOTUS justice.


62 posted on 02/14/2016 11:28:34 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

The Republicans need to “bork” Obama’s anti-constitutional judicial nominees.


63 posted on 02/15/2016 1:17:41 AM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622
is there a way the forefathers left us to shoot down ruling by the SCOTUS????!!!!
You mean like the Dred Scott case? Obviously not. At least, not a civil one . . .

The only ways are impeachment, and constitutional amendment. Neither of which you are likely to be able to do when you need it.


64 posted on 02/15/2016 4:58:35 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

First, NEVER use the word obviously when talking to me about the constitution or court decisions, as i’m embarrassingly ignorant on a lot the facts.

So there is no realistically feasible way to overturn a SC decision or get rid of a judge?

didn’t the forefathers see what a politically idealistically divided court could to to a country?


65 posted on 02/15/2016 6:20:51 AM PST by dp0622
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Looks like it’s time for Obama to give his speech where he vows that he will not wait for the Republicans to pass this vital appointment and “fix” it with his pen and his phone.


66 posted on 02/15/2016 9:30:52 AM PST by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622
First, NEVER use the word obviously when talking to me about the constitution or court decisions, as i’m embarrassingly ignorant on a lot the facts.
Humility is refreshing; we should all follow your example more.

I would add, however, that the Constitution of the United States is a fairly compact document which rewards a rereading every now and then. I do not, however, claim to have it memorized in its entirety as Cruz is said to have done.

So there is no realistically feasible way to overturn a SC decision or get rid of a judge?
First, understand that the founding fathers feared what they called “faction” and you and I call political parties.
The Twelfth Amendment was needed in part because the original constitutional way of electing the vice president systematically produced a VP who was a rival rather than, as now, the designated political heir of the president.

It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict an indictment (“impeachment”) of a judge (or president). It is extremely difficult for a political party to win 60%, still more 67%, of the Senate. I question whether anything short of a civil war creates that much polarization. Watergate came close, but by now the influence of the journalists who promoted Watergate as the worst scandal in the history of scandals is IMHO not quite as influential anymore.

But of course the extra-constitutionalism of the present POTUS may plant a bomb big enough to cause such a polarization.

didn’t the forefathers see what a politically idealistically divided court could to to a country?
They could not foresee everything, let alone provide adequately against everything. Americans have to maintain the system, and the sad fact is that the nation has raised up an army of Sophists who care more about themselves than about freedom for their own great grandchildren. The real genius motivating the framers was “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” That long-term focus explains why the Constitution is as good as it is. IMHO we should make it easier to amend the Constitution with less of a supermajority, provided that such amendments do not take effect for 25 years after enactment. And, of course, provided they are not repealed before then.

67 posted on 02/15/2016 11:33:56 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

LONG, INTENSE situation of chaos right when a new POTUS should be taking over?>>> just a book i was working on that i can’t finish cuz real people are now involved. and it’s imagination. but the electoral college votes for the president of the united states. no one else.


68 posted on 02/18/2016 8:32:16 PM PST by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson