Posted on 02/14/2016 8:01:06 PM PST by Texas Fossil
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded to the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with a press release saying, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) agree. Hillary Clinton spoke for many Democrats: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor the Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibly here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons." Conor Friedersdorf says the no-vote stratagem is "illegitimate" because "the Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its "advice and consent" obligation. A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation." Clinton and Friedersdorf are wrong. Senators have every right to advocate not holding a vote on an Obama appointment, and not to hold a vote.
Clinton and Friedersdorf are overlooking the "consent" part of "advice and consent." Consent means the Senate is under no obligation whatsoever even to hold a vote on any presidential appointment. The Senate’s obligation is to do what the Senate wants, and only what the Senate wants. Those are the rules. To try to hold senators to a different rule is to try to change the rules on them–and people tend to resent that. Everyone is free to disagree with the positions individual senators or the Senate as a whole take on individual nominations or prospective nominations. But there is no question that senators individually or collectively can deny their consent to any actual or prospective nomination for any reason–just as the American people can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.
Indeed, President Obama isn’t even entitled to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia–or at least, Congress can deny him that right. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. In 1789, there were only six. Given sufficient congressional support (i.e., veto-proof majorities in both chambers), Congress could reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from the current nine to eight. McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio could propose doing so right now. It seems strange to criticize senators who are merely expressing in what circumstances they will withhold their consent when Congress has the power to deny the president the ability to fill this vacancy entirely by itself eliminating this vacancy.
At the same time Democrats turn a blind eye to President Obama repeatedly ignoring constitutional limits on his power, they claim Republicans would dishonor the Constitution if they use powers the Constitution clearly grants them. That is unlikely to dissuade Senate Republicans from delaying a vote on Scalia’s successor until 2017. Nor should it. For more on this topic, please read this by my colleague Ilya Shapiro at Forbes.
Scalia’s untimely passing was a gut punch. I didn’t agree with him all the time. But I agree with Trevor Burrus about him. RIP.
I think it depends on who was responsible for killing Scalia. I don’t think I have ever been able to sleep with my pillow over my head. Under, yes. above,yes. to one side or the other, yes.
Everyone thinks they can make this really intricate, but that’s not going to happen.
What will happen is, Obama will make and appointment and the Senate will either confirm or not.
That’s it. NO way in hell does Obama let this crisis go to waste.
So I have two questions:
1. Does anyone SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that the Republicans will not confirm a nominee for Obama?
2. If you believe that, what are the precedents you can cite where Republicans ever stood up to Obama on anything of any importance? And if they are inclined to, why didn't they do it on the budget/debt?
Yes we can!
Si se puedo!
Have people forgotten the term “Borked?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
Only a matter of time and Trump won’t bother going through Congress
He has the army
To hell with the political process.
“Nope, they can actually reduce the number of members of the supreme court before then.”
That’s correct, read this:
http://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html
As I read it The Congress could reduce the number of justices immediately with the reductions to take place as current members left or died. So the Republicans could reduce the court to eight members ( or less) and Obola would not be able to nominate anyone who would by their approval cause the court to exceed the legally set number under the new Act of Congress changing the number.
—>Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court<—
-
Yes, and the president has the power to veto that proposal.
As much as I cannot stand Mitch I do not think for one minute he will let this get away from him.
Then he continued by saying, "However if the president asks, John McCain and I will work to grant him this effort to create a legacy of leftist judicial activism as we did with Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor!"< /sarc >
How's it feel, bitch? The leader of your party has trampled all over the Constitution since he was elected and NOW you're getting pissy about it?
For one time in his life, I hope McConnell does the right thing! But there is going to be so much pressure on him, he will probably fold!
Very strange hearing a Democrat complain about dishonoring the Constitution.
I agree!
If Obama and the Dems.. and the turncoat Reps allow this Kenyan imposter to determine the fate of our country for decades to come...’
It is pitchforks and torches time.....
I have never posted words like that..... We have strength in numbers.
Yes!!! Thank you! I knew a smart Freeper would come up with something! ðŸ˜
Yep, whatever Obama wants they can’t kneel fast enough for “Supreme court Justice Eric Holder? Yes sir yes sir, capital idea! Whatever you say sir!”
Hey maybe he committed suicide by suffocating himself with the pillow.
Thankfully we hold the senate. That’s our only chance of keeping another libtard out.
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.