Didn’t they vote for obama for 2 four year terms? or not? What is it?
Look out for the will of the voters. How will it be when they spit out the R party forever? Will you be flying that flag then?
Yes and no.
Congress has pride of place in the Constitution (Article 1), and that is no accident. Nor is it an accident that the legislature is bicameral; the legislative power is so awesome that there need be checks and balances even within Congress itself.
But Congress does not get the ultimate interpretation of its own legislation, nor does it have the bureaucracy - or military - to enforce it. (Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal quote (“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”) was about the Supreme Court, not Congress, but the point remains.)
As for the main point, the notion that there is textual support for the proposition that the Senate must confirm a nominee is daft. Among other problems, and as others have pointed out, it would render the “advice and consent” clause surplusage.
The voters selected a President just as they have selected a U.S. Senate.
Has Obama even found a nominee yet? Remember, Obama “shall” nominate a Justice. Has Obama the First fulfilled his doody to God and Country yet?
Oops. Read that post incorrectly. For some reason I thought you were asking about Chief Justice.
No, Congress cannot eliminate the post of SCJ anymore than they can eliminate the post of president. Both are established by the constitution, outside the powers of Congress in terms of their existence.
Yeah, of course it’s daft. That’s why not a single person has said that. That’s why there hasn’t been a Constitutional crisis after all the other rejections, that have happened since the beginning of American history. So I don’t know why you felt it even worth rebutting. The current issue is that since the beginning, it’s been accepted practice to consider nominees rather than reject the notion that the sitting President is supposed to even make a nomination.
I see you’re making some progress. That’s always a good thing. The U.S. Senate operates under it’s own rules.
Has Obama (not Reid, or the media outlets) found someone to nominate yet? Let’s get this party started. First - the nomination.
Weeeeeeeell? We’re waiting.
He knows. And he is going to have fun with the Rs until they have spun so much they have turned into a pool of butter. In the end they will wish they had kept quiet, as the american people do already.
Scalia only died a little over 2 weeks ago. They are still hanging the black cloth over his seat. I am surprised how disrepectful you’re being demanding that he get replaced so quickly. And you think it’s a party? Most unseemly.
But, in theory, they could keep impeaching the president until they get one that will do what they want.
Imagine a Republican congress and a Democratic president who keep fighting them every step of the way. They don’t have the power to override his vetoes, but they do have a majority. They could, in theory, nuke the filibuster, impeach the President and Vice President, and then the Republican Speaker of the House would now have the job.
The only thing preventing that sort of scenario is the fear that the people would not elect them again next time.
But, we can go further. If they were in power long enough, they could refuse every Supreme Court Justice until they had a quorum of people who will agree to find everything they pass as Constitutional. Then they could have the Supreme Court find laws that would prevent them from being voted out as perfectly Constitutional.
Now, of course, we’re starting out very unlikely, and only getting worse as we go. But the point is, on paper, Congress is the one in charge.
It could have been made better if the Supreme Court presided over impeachment hearings. Then both branches would handle problems with the third.
Frylock said it explicitly, posts 102 and 111.
If you want to take it further, the Senate has a great many ways to advise the President without formal hearings.
The Chief Justice presides over impeachment of the President.
That is no small thing!
Elections (and associated social/political/moral pressure) are, by design, the major limiting factor in a representative democracy. Certainly the constitutional drafters thought so, and certainly that is hard-baked into the system.
Nit pick. The CJ presides over the trial in the Senate. The impeachment is something the House does all by its lonesome.
You mean that they enforce on him that they will meet with him to tell him who they want, but actually refuse to hold any hearing, even if he demands it?
What if he refuses to have a meeting under that condition? Who is obstructing the fulfillment of the court?
Nobody? Everybody? Neither side is under a duty to submit to the demands of the other.
Put it another way. To fit the analogy, suppose an overly technical, futuristic society tried to determine how sexual relations would be conducted in the future for procreation, and they came up with this rule:
A man shall propose sexual relations with a particular female, and with the advice and consent of that female, have sexual relations with her.
That’s pretty much life now for single guys. Does it follow that the female MUST consent? Must she listen to a one hour presentation from me on why she should have sex with me? Must she give me advice? Must she give me a reason at all? The answers to all of those questions are “no.”
Huh? What are you talking about? This is at least the second time I’ve seen consensual vs non-consensual sexual intercourse invoked as some kind of metaphor for this or something and it still isn’t apropos in the least although I’m sure you enjoyed the experience. Why is this a constant theme here?
There are duties incumbent on all parties here of one kind or another. There is apparently no duty to fill the court but there is a requirement to have a court. There is also a constitutional duty for the POTUS to nominate and appoint.
This is where the question lies. How can you logically carry forward with an intent to not approve any nominees under a democrat, when what that means is that the court loses it’s right to exist at all. It also loses it’s credibility as a decision making body, as if that hasn’t been compromised enough.This may become a conflict wherein someone or some body will have to take some blame. If you try to control it that much you will destroy it. The founding fathers thought we would be able to make that call. Can we?
It is technically possible to do this, but all you have to do is do it once and we would have to have a constitutional amendment to prevent it from happening again. I say go ahead with it. How many people do you need in a wedge to make that happen? I’m waiting. It’s going to be just as much fun as Trump, for me and for you too.
It’s not duty free.
I think you are using the terms nominate and appoint interchangeably, when they are not.
The POTUS can nominate whomever he likes. In order for an appointment to take effect, the POTUS must obtain the (positive) consent of the Senate.
Well, this is the SDMB. It’s like our version of Rule 34.
The Constitution requires a Supreme Court and specifically mentions a Chief Justice and speaks in the plural of judges so it assumes there will be more than one judge in the United States. How many more? Doesn’t say.
That’s it. The rest of the details of the judicial system are left up to the law making process. How many inferior courts? How many justices on the Supreme Court? All up to the law making process and subject to change by passing a new law, not amending the Constitution.
There is a Constitutional duty for the president to, with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint. The President is powerless to appoint without that advice and consent.
We keep treating advice and consent as two different things. There is some benefit to thinking of it that way, but it really wasn’t envisioned that way by the Founders. The Senate either grants Advice and Consent, or denies Advice and Consent. Technically it does not offer advice and deny consent.
Not quite sure I’m following the rest of the argument.
Nobody is talking about not having a Supreme Court or not allowing Democratic presidents to nominate Justices. What we are saying is that the Senate plays a role in determining the appointments. You have said that the Senate must consent. That is absurd.
Let’s rank judges based upon a 1 to 100 scale with 1 being as right wing as Hitler and 100 being as left as Karl Marx. The Senate would like a 10 and Obama wants an 90. The Senate is under no duty to confirm a 80, 70, 60, or 50. Textually, which was the point of the thread, they are under no duty to confirm at all.
You are taking this rather obvious point to suggest that there will not be a Supreme Court at all. Even if historically a Senate in this situation would confirm a 70 or 60, it is under no obligation to do so, especially when it tips the balance of power on the Court, and especially when the Court is injecting itself into things which our Founders would have believed best left to the democratic process.
Some think it is unseemly to judge nominees based upon their political philosophy, but again, when the Supreme Court becomes political, it’s fair game and it has been happening for at least thirty years (See Robert Bork; nobody disputed that he was very well qualified to be a Justice, but disliked his judicial philosophy).
Going forward, when there is split control of the presidency and the Senate, the nominee will likely have to be in the 50s. Let Obama nominate Anthony Kennedy, Jr. and I’ll bet the Senate confirms. Let him nominate Antonin Scalia, Jr. and it definitely confirms. It’s a balance and a negotiation, not an attempt to destroy the Court. The sky is not falling.
When the same party controls the presidency and the Senate, you’ll see those 20s and 80s on the Court.
It looks pretty obvious to me that Frylock is joking. But I’ve been wrong before.