Republican stonewalling of Scalia's replacement is treason

[jmowreader]

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

18 USC 2381 reads:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Any Republican who prevents the president of the United States from carrying out his duty to choose a justice to replace Antonin Scalia has committed the crime of Treason, and should be punished by five years in a federal prison, fined $10,000 and permanently lose the right to hold a government job of any kind.

Fuck these people. They want war? Well, there's a penalty for committing one against the country you're sworn to serve.

[davepc]

1. They can stonewall all they want, he can juse recess apoint.

[randys1]

3. He would have to wait for a recess

[2naSalit]

9. There are plenty of them on their schedule for this year....nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. they never actually recess

He already lost that case in court.

[2naSalit]

30. Thanks, I couldn't remember the decision.

In which case, crap.

[Duckhunter935]

33. national labor relations board

Appointees

[valerief]

29. They don't recess, though. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. It would motivate dems to vote

[randys1]

4. Yep, this is a win win , either the fucks do their god damn job, or it infuriates enough

to show up and vote

[tritsofme]

5. Nonsense. It is most certainly not treason. The Senate may confirm, reject, or not act on nominees.

That is their prerogative.

[jmowreader]

12. Sauce for the goose

The GOP told us when Shrub Bush was gearing up for an unnecessary war against Saddam Hussein that anyone who failed to support a sitting president during wartime was a traitor. And the far right has decided anything President Obama has done since he started campaigning for the office of senator from Illinois, including doing things they actually liked. Since the definition of treason has been changed to "anything our opponent does or doesn't do," the GOP claiming they're going to reject every Supreme Court nominee the president sends to the Senate before he even decides on one has GOT to be an act of war against the country.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. And you feel that since they were wrong...

...you feel entitled to be wrong as well?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act-of-war
>> an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

You're new at this aren't you.

[tritsofme]

39. It is not an act of war, it is not treason. It is an argument that makes you look foolish.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Apparently you didn't really understand the definitions of treason you posted. n/t

[jaysunb]

7. The leaders of the Confederacy were never deemed traitors

and if so, they certainly weren't punished for their actions. So, you can forget about punishing or branding this current iteration.

[meow2u3]

15. They damn well should have been treated as the traitors they were

[jaysunb]

22. Yes, they should have, and that's why we have

many of the social problems we have today.

[davidn3600]

8. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people throw around "treason" without knowing what it means

No. It's not treason.

The Senate has the constitutonal right to reject any nominee. We have check and balance power in this nation. The president is not a dictator or a monarch.

Go to North Korea if you want to live in a country where it's treason to disagree with the leader.

[TeddyR]

28. Yep

[Hekate]

10. Not every act of obstruction is treason. True, they don't believe in governance or government....

....and they are bastards, no question about that.

[stone space]

11. You want them killed?

Fuck these people. They want war? Well, there's a penalty for committing one against the country you're sworn to serve.

You did post the penalty, after all, before adding this line at the end.

[C_U_L8R]

13. Once again

dastardly republican schemes will backfire
and the will end up embarrassed losers.

[B Calm]

14. They would be subverting the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES that they pretend to cherish!

[GGJohn]

18. Just how would the repukes be subverting the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES?

Their Constitutional duties are to either confirm, reject or take no action on the President's choice for the SC.

[GGJohn]

16. Treason?

Where do you get treason? This doesn't even rise to sedition.

The President nominates a candidate, the Senate can either confirm, reject or take no action, that's their duties under our Constitution, so, how would they be traitors?

[craigmatic]

17. They'll try to stop him. Now the presidential race suddenly matters more. Can he get an appointment

before his term is over?

[GGJohn]

19. He can nominate, but it's the Senate that has to confirm his choice,

what do you think the chances of that happening are?

[craigmatic]

20. Probably somewhere between jack and shit although it doesn't take 11 months to confirm a nominee.

[GGJohn]

23. It really shouldn't take but a couple of weeks at the most to confirm,

but we all know that ain't going to happen.

[craigmatic]

25. Still we let them have Thomas's seat after Marshall. LBJ got Marshall in during 1968.

I know that was a long time ago but it could still happen.

[robhalf4369]

21. So true

But the GOP just won't listen to reason. They are truly rotten and corrupt to the core, and will stop at nothing to screw over this country.

[GGJohn]

24. What's true?

That the repukes would be committing treason if they don't take any action on the President's nominee?

[craigmatic]

27. It's not treason it's poison politics. Constitution says all that stuff but it doesn't say when they

have to do it or how fast.

[GGJohn]

32. I am so glad that most of us here understand how our Constitution actually works,

and don't fall for that treason nonsense just because we don't agree with the repukes obstructionist policies, and the repukes are masters at that.

[TeddyR]

31. I don't think

You know the definition of treason. Refusing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee certainly isn't treason.

[DesMoinesDem]

34. Obviously it's treason, not to mention genocide, and carpetbagging, and heresy.

I probably should check the definition on some of these, but I'm pretty sure I'm right so i won't.

[GGJohn]

36. LOL, I see what you did there.

[rbrnmw]

38. ...

[AngryAmish]

35. Ever Republican senator should be whipped until they agree to confirm.

Hard to dissent when your back is flayed away.

[flamingdem]

40. Are there legal remedies to prevent it?

Many lawyers are hitting the books tonight.

[Recursion]

41. FFS, no it's not treason (nt)