General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSigh, what can dems LEGALLY do about USSC Seat? LEGALLY? Not senate or house rules?
Sigh, what can dems LEGALLY do about USSC Seat? LEGALLY? Not senate or house rules?
Congressional ... RULES ... don't matter seeing republicans changed a shit ton of them in the first 6 months of Uber Fuhrer Baby Snatchers term.
What can dem pols in the house and senate LEGALLY do?
Thx in advance
P.S. People who support baby snatching don't
- Give a shit about feelings
- Give a damn about protest or occupations
- "fighting" outside of the law, they don't give a damn about civilty
- Rules, they'll just break them or change them transactionally
They care about votes !!
What can dems do to hold this seat off till after November?
Response to uponit7771 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... to the bullshit the Uber Fuhrer Baby Snatcher is pulling.
We don't have to be civil towards those bastards
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Ilsa
(61,697 posts)set it at nine. Are we going to overturn a 149 year old law?
byronius
(7,400 posts)FDR considered expanding the court to 12.
Me, I'm ready for serious bare-knuckled nazi-punching.
Whatever. Either way, FIGHT.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)byronius
(7,400 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Kennedy is gone, and his retirement raised the stakes for the midterm election exponentially.
If the standard is no election year confirmations, Democrats must dig in, and do exactly what Mitch McConnell did. Chuck Schumer must keep the Supreme Court short one justice until after the midterm election.
Never forget what Mitch McConnell did to Merrick Garland.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)All we had was the US Constitution.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)The Senate can grant (or withhold) consent however it chooses.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The Senate never gave Obama "Advice and Consent" as stipulated in the Constitution. Which comes under "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate..."
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)There is no statutory nor Constitutional provision that defines how the Senate grants or withholds their consent. It's slimy, but neither illegal nor unconstitutional to withhold consent by not holding a vote.
Note before answering - you must deal with the question "what is the Constitutional difference between 'advice and consent' when dealing with Supreme Court vs lower court nominees?"
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It requires a Senate vote, advice and consent. Not another president.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)That was the Republicans' claim years ago - it went nowhere.
Did you think that it wasn't obvious why you dodged the question?
What is the Constitutional difference between advice and consent with the USSC vs federal appellate courts?
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"The people" are the ultimate source of authority,
We pick the Senate we want in regards to confirmations.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)There's no mechanism to enforce the words.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We don't pick Supreme Court justices in election years.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We'll have to do this some ofhter way
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Based on words.
"We don't vote on Supreme Court justices in election years."
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)It was based on power. They held the majority.
They could have held a vote and simply said "no"... but instead they chose not to vote at all.
At the time... many Democrats were pleased.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Funny what seems to please "many Democrats."
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)"Many Democrats" WANTED to nomination held up because we expected to win the White House. Hillary was going to pick more progressive judges and we were going to take back the Senate.
We were even arguing here on DU on how we could stop Republicans from lame-duck voting on him after they lost.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The point was, if Hillary won we'd still pick the Supreme Court justice.
We were looking for best-case scenarios.
Like we should be doing NOW!
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)I was referring to the question you keep dodging.
What's the constitutional difference between confirming the two types of judges?
The point was, if Hillary won we'd still pick the Supreme Court justice.
Nope. The point was that Garland was a moderate and most DUers didn't want him. We wanted Clinton to pick someone else.
We were looking for best-case scenarios.
The best case scenario is that Trump picks someone with literal skeletons in his closet and the whole thing goes down in flames... perhaps twice... until he's forced to pick someone more moderate.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Republicans do care about it. They came up with it.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... about, if it doesn't get them thrown in jail they're game ... period.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)And everyone knew that it was just a way around voting down a nominee and having to take the fallout on election day.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the courts direction."
THAT year it was a presidential election. This year it's a Senate election. Co-equal branches on this matter, so it seems.
Do the people have a say?
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Even the Washington Post says this is nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/27/democrats-bogus-argument-about-what-the-gop-said-about-supreme-court-nominees-in-an-election-year/?utm_term=.6f6fabd0e21c
Here's what we can say: Democrats are protesting too much.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I would argue Democrats don't protest enough.
Both McConnell and Ryan argued "the people should have a say."
Am I wrong to agree?
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Here's Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), immediately after Garland was nominated: A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests.
Here's what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said: I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.
Link to tweet
/photo/1
And while making the case on Fox News Sunday in March 2016, McConnell repeatedly cited the presidential election year, not just an election year: We're following the Biden rule. And Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992, in presidential election year, he said the Senate should not act on filling a Supreme Court vacancy if it had occurred that year. .?.?. So, all we're doing, Chris, is following a long-standing tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year.
Am I wrong to agree?
Did you agree at the time?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Now that we have precedent.
All these arguments you are presenting for capitulation on this subject are compelling! If I was a Republican!
McConnell clrearly stated "the people" should have a voice in the selection. This is an election year. The representatives who will confirm any nominee are up in the air. Do we not have a voice?
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)But we're going to accuse him of hypocrisy, right? But not Schumer (who got rid of the filibuster option for most judicial nominations in the first place)?
Why not admit it? There is no legal/constitutional/moral precedent involved. We just don't want another conservative judge on the court for 30+ years, and will latch on to ANY theory that might keep it from happening.
I get it. I agree emotionally... but denying reality has never succeeded in making me feel better. I hope you have more success.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)TRUMP controls the Executive, the Judicial, and both houses of Congress.
It's over.
Jose Garcia
(2,601 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Enemies of our enemy.
Jose Garcia
(2,601 posts)inwiththenew
(972 posts)I wouldn't be willing to wager on that bet not in an election year in a state Trump got 70% of the vote in.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)They will probably do whatever they have to as those are ruby red states. Trump and the Reich Wing Fundie White Nationalist goon squads will pour into the voting booths and vote them out I fear if they end up being the blocks.
We are so fucked.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)McConnell hasn't been willing to kill the filibuster, but if ever there was a time to dare him to, it is now.
sweetloukillbot
(11,062 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)behind them.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Desperate times call for desperate measures.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... bastards
Amishman
(5,559 posts)It's as effective as anything else we might try and distracts me from the shitstorm
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)First Speaker
(4,858 posts)...as we not-so-slowly move towards a one-party, authoritarian state. See Poland. Turkey. Hungary. Russia, of course. At some point, Dems are either going to continue recognizing the legitimacy of what the GOP regards as "legal"--or we're going to have to decide for ourselves what constitutes legality.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... don't even think about "civility" or the whining's of the KGOP.
Fuck them,
McConnell changed rules inside and out, whatever is legal is doable when they get in power
Initech
(100,100 posts)And it's been a slow boil for over 40 years now. The only way to get our country back is to vote every single one of them out. But I don't think that can be done.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Get them to vote with the Democrats to block Trump's nominee.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)0rganism
(23,967 posts)dumping a truckload of manure in front of McConnell's driveway might be fun, but it's not legal so it doesn't count in this context...
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Elections have consequences.
Jill Stein's white privilege largely insulates her from any fallout from any Trump decision or action, a shame that the people she claims to speak for aren't so lucky.