DEMS ARE DOOMED FOR EXTINCTION
Posted on 01/16/2005 1:46:52 PM PST by inquest
WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped a new "optimistic" climate would take hold now that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the top Democrat, succeeding the defeated Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whom the GOP labeled an obstructionist.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who are you, Harry Blackmun's ghost?
I don't care about emanations, penumbras OR "implications".
There is no textual support for the proposition that the Senate must DO anything, or NOT do anything, in ascertaining whether or not it consents to a President's nomination.
What constitutes consent is entirely up to the Senate.
The textual support is that there are certain events that require a super majority. Confirmation is not one of them.
screw the dems.....they only know force
inquest - You're just going round and round in circles. It's not possible for them to prevent him from doing his duty, because his duty is to make the appointment provided he gets their advice and consent.
The only one spinning around here is you. In addition to faulty logic, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the constitutional terms at issue. First, the phrase "Advice and Consent" in constitutional law means simply that the Senate must vote to either approve to reject the President's nominee. That is all it means. Further, since the Framers of the Constitution were always careful to explicitly state when super-majorities were required, the fact that they did not specify that here means that a simple majority is sufficient for Advice and Consent.
Secondly, your slippery insertion of the word "provided" to mean "if" as in "provided he gets their advice and consent" is disingenuous, constitutionally unsupported and logically invalid. The actual language from Article 2, Section 2 is "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...", which in accepted constitutional usage simply means "he shall nominate, and by and with the simple majority vote of the Senate, shall appoint...". There is no "if"; the Senate is required to vote.
inquest - It's not a question of "sequence and timing", just a question of meeting the proper conditions. If the conditions are met (that is, if he gets their advice and consent), then it's his duty to make the appointment. If the conditions aren't met, it's not his duty.
Once again, there is no "if", no "provided". The Constitution does not say "he shall nominate, and 'if' the Senate gives Advice and Consent...". Advice and Consent can be either Yes or No, Approve or Reject. If The Senate says Yes, the President can appoint the nominee to the position. If the vote is No, the process starts over and the President must find another nominee. The term "Consent" in Advice and Consent refers only and solely to whether the nominee gets a majority of votes. That is its only constitutionally valid meaning. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution and the language of Article 2, Section 2 which provides any authority or any mechanism or process for the Senate to avoid or decline to exercise Advice and Consent, i.e. to simply vote on these nominations.
>We already "rue" the day. Now let us "RULE" the day. I say that we do any damn thing we want. That is what they did when they were in power. It's our 50 years now.<
And it's about time the Republicans on The Hill realized it and started acting like winners by exercizing their power. No more "Mr. Nice Guy", DemoncRats!
Right, so the Senate CANNOT, by rule, ratify a treaty with 51 votes. I agree.
Do you take it, then, that since our enumerated rights are few, that we have no other rights because they are not spelled out?
No, because "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Isn't it amazing that when we do get the majority, they cry, "you must reach across the aisle" but when they control I never saw anyone asking for our opinion about anything. Time to turn the screws.
Alas! Too many Rinos, and other moderates keeping their derriers covered!
This is the classic Mad Scientist, Megalomaniac Taking Over The World, Criminal Hostage Taker story.
The Evil One takes a Hostage, the Hero makes it to the Hideout to rescue the Hostage, the Evil One says "Stop, or I'll kill the Hostage. Don't make me kill the Hostage. If I kill the Hostage, it will be Your fault."
The Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans for forcing them to do what they're doing.
-PJ
If there is ever a time to use it it's when Supreme Court Justices are appointed. We must not lose the opportunity to get good conservatives in there.
We have 4 years to accomplish some important things, the Dems wouldn't hesitate to do it and I hope our people don't lose their nerve!
"If they want to carry that through, it's a short-term victory for them, because they're not going to be in the majority forever," he said. "We're going to be in the majority. That's the way history is. And I think that they would rue the day they did that."
Republicans will be the ultimate suckers if they fail to "go nuclear". If the Republicans decide to "play nice", the Democrats will, in private, laugh their stinking faces off. And then the first chance the Democrats get to "go nuclear", they will do so in a heartbeat.... at which point they will laugh their faces off out loud.
Dems are dooming demselves!!
Your red X's are showing, don't get all upset!
Harry Reid: "We have approved for the president of the United States 204 judges the last four years," he said. "We've turned down 10. Even in modern math, that's a pretty good deal."He said the 10 who did not get a vote in 2004 "were rightfully turned down." The White House announced last month that Bush would renominate them.
So you are proud you obstructed those ten? ALL of them should get an up-or-down floor vote, Buster. ALL of them.
40% does NOT equal a majority in the Senate. And if the GOP was obstructing 'RAT judges, you and the media would be howling.
Now shut up and let them have a FLOOR vote.
But it would require only a simple majority to change Rule 22 to exempt judicial appointments from filibuster.
It most certainly is because the Constitution allows the Senate and House to set their own rules.
Shut the yap and nuke the sombitches. Like terrorist its the only thing they understand.
All that proves is that the Constitution itself doesn't mandate a supermajority in this instance. It doesn't prove that Senate rules can't establish a supermajority.
Once again, there is no "if", no "provided". The Constitution does not say "he shall nominate, and 'if' the Senate gives Advice and Consent...".
It says he shall appoint "with" their advice and consent. That means their advice and consent (consent, specifically) is the condition that needs to be met in order for him to make the appointment. If he has it, he shall appoint. If he doesn't, he shall not appoint. There's no "shall" directed towards the Senate, only the President.
If the "by and with" part constitutes a command to the Senate, than that means the Senate is commanded to consent to the nomination, which is absurd.
If The Senate says Yes, the President can appoint the nominee to the position.
If the Senate says Yes, he must appoint the nominee to the position. You're shifting the imperative from the President, where the language clearly indicates it belongs, to the Senate, where no express command is given to them.
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.