Yes, and also 10% off bacon and cheese on the fries!
How did he assesss “the will of the majority of the body”?
The minority party doesn’t cede it’s rights simply by being in the minority. You don’t get to gloss the process because you feel your numbers are greater.What did mcconnell do to assess the situation and assure the advise and consent happened?
I think you’re imagining “rights” for the minority party that don’t, in actuality, exist. They don’t have the “right” to force a vote on a matter. Majorities do that, and in the case of the Senate, it often even requires/required a super-majority. If the majority wanted to vote on Garland, they could have done so. I’m not well-versed in the particular details of parliamentary procedure that allow that.
Is that what you think the Founding Fathers meant? Would they be proud that somebody could find a weasel-word way to get around the Constitution? Are *you *proud of it?
The Constitution, like in any democracy’s, works exactly because we want it to, and won’t if we don’t. Which of those sides are you and your party on?
Honest question: imagine the Republicans had flatly told Obama that they were going to vote “no” on anybody he nominated — and then they held the vote on Garland and voted “no”, possibly with each such Senator looking right into a TV camera and saying “why did the guy bother? I mean, we told him we were going to vote ‘no’, and then we voted ‘no’. Seriously, does he just not get it? We just went over this!”
How significant an improvement, in your opinion, would that have been?
Imagine the Senate is debating a bill to rename the post office in rural West Virginia for Robert C. Byrd. A Democratic Senator gains the floor and says the following:
Dem Senator: Mr. President. I move that the text of the bill being discussed be stricken and as a substitute, the following be inserted: “The Senate of the United States hereby confirms the nomination of Merrick Garland as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
GOP Senator: Objection! Objection, Mr. President! The Motion of my Democratic friend is out of order and I move that it be declared out of order.
President Pro Temp: The objection of the Senator from Republicanville is sustained. The motion of the Democratic gentleman is out of order and I rule it out of order.
Dem Senator: Mr. President, I appeal from the decision of the chair.
At this point, the yeas and nays will be ordered. If a majority wants Garland confirmed, here it is.
Waldo: None. At best it’s following mere form, not spirit and meaning, like elections in the USSR. Now why would you think there’s a real difference that it’s worth asking an “honest question” about?
This is how democracies fail, btw - when a large enough faction of people come into power who don’t care about its succeeding but are willing to weasel around it to the point where they can eventually ignore it entirely, and cement their power. Your turn for an honest question: Is that where we’re headed? Is that maybe where we already are?
In this situation no one was a majority or a minority, because there was no action to make such a thing exist. It is unconstitutional for Mcconnell to have done this, not to the minority but to the senate, and to the nation, whether it is couched in terms of rights or duties or something else.
Because I genuinely don’t get the brouhaha over what happened to Garland: I don’t see it as at all problematic, and so I honestly don’t get which part of it involves what you’d see as a key difference.
As far as I can tell, one person (a) can do stuff if he gets the consent of various other people; and he (b) didn’t get the consent of those other people. Uh, okay. So what? It’s mystifying to me that this isn’t the beginning and the end of the whole debate, and so I’m genuinely curious as to whether the nominee getting voted down or not even getting voted on was the part that truly bugged you.
I don’t quite follow you. You talk about people who don’t care about its succeeding but are willing to “weasel”; what about people who’d reply that they do care but are willing to “weasel”? And at what point does “perform a legal action for what you see as the greater good” morph into “weasel”?
Because, on one read of it: sure, maybe that’s where we got to — but, on that read of it, I guess I thought America was already there before I was born.
I think the Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to choose what it acted on and what it didn’t, and wouldn’t have considered it “a weasel-word way to get around the Constitution”.
This bit is obviously wrong.
I would have more respect for people here saying, “HA! We managed to steal a supreme court justice seat!” than I do for those here who are pretending to not see how this was problematic.
I’m not pretending, because that’s not what stealing is. The president gets to do stuff if he gets consent from enough of the right people, and he — didn’t? No matter how I squint at that, or at any other guy who needs to get consent but doesn’t actually get it, I can’t for the life of me pretend my way into calling it a steal.
He failed to advise and consent. It’s on him. He never even tried. That goes to intent. He is just as guilty and just as self-indicting as the orange baboon, if you look at his clips. Just because something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it never happens. It means it needs a hearing. People get away with stuff all the time. A lot of stuff does need to be taken care of at the ballot box. You’re saying that Rs never called him out on it and that means it was constitutional?
Now with K they are perverting the process by rushing it. another A and C failure. (Do they feel guilty? It’s a guilty look anyway)
I’m saying it was constitution because the constitution does not require the Senate to hold a hearing, or a vote, on a nominee. It allows them the option of saying “fuck off, Mr. President”, in deed if not in word. If it was actually unconstitutional, the D’s could have “called him out on it” in court, but the did not because it is not.
Prediction: elucidator moves on to other subjects without a word of admission here.
I know where it says “advise and consent.” I know it was flouted by Mcconnell who expressed his disdain, and admitted on camera that he intended to act unconstitutionally. Where is the “fuck off” option?
Mcconnel restrained the senate from coming to the point in any process where what you are describing could have happened.
The senate was prevented from acting (to deliberate, or straw poll, or research) by Mcconnell.
I’m not so sure you do, if you still believe it’s obligatory on the Senate.
Cite for “admitted on camera that he intended to act unconstitutionally”?
See post #94.