General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo the Rockettes should "do their job"...
Mara Wilson Verified account ?@MaraWilson
So the Rockettes should "do their job" but pharmacists who don't want to give birth control or bakers that won't serve gay people shouldn't?
9:34 AM - 23 Dec 2016
23.5K RETWEETS 42.1K LIKES
https://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/812350605851234304
raging moderate
(4,308 posts)"The President SHALL appoint...justices of the Supreme Court..." In this context, SHALL has an imperative nature.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)"The President SHALL appoint...justices of the Supreme Court..." ?
csziggy
(34,137 posts)https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)"...he shall nominate...", not "he shall appoint".
He can nominate all he wants, he can't appoint without advice and consent of the Senate.
csziggy
(34,137 posts)https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II
So it DOES say that "he shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court."
Yes, it also says with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" but the Senate has refused to participate in the process at all. I wish President Obama had pushed this - to have an appointment stalled like this is unprecedented.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)the part that says he must have advice and consent of the Senate totally changes the meaning, which of course, you already knew.
By refusing to participate, the Senate has refused to advise and consent, therefore, no appointment.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Yes, it actually says that the President shall appoint. The fact that the President does this with the Senate does not change the fact that the President shall appoint.
Maybe some coffee is in order.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)will make a false argument true.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)the ... is filled with a clause that says that the Senate is required with the appointing part, but not the nominating part.
No amount of caffeine will make your blunder of questioning where it says shall appoint correct. But it might make it a little bit more obvious that it says it right there, in the constitution.
Have a nice night, enjoy your family, and maybe Santa will let you forget tomorrow.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)".......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......."
Interesting how easily that gets left out.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)the clause "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" includes the Senate in on appointing, but not nominating.
It very clearly states the President shall nominate and appoint.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)But a nomination requires approval and you can't just wish the part of securing advice and consent out of the Senate away.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)RagingModerate was taking the Senate to task for not doing their job. You are actually making RM's point, by trying to argue against RM.
Someone foolishly asked where it says "shall appoint".
One can not take snippets of the Constitution out of context and be correct. That's where the abbreviated 2nd amendment problems arise with people ignoring a well regulated militia.
No one is wishing "the part of securing advice and consent out of the Senate away."
The constitution clearly says the President shall nominate and shall appoint. Wishing away the part of "shall appoint" doesn't make it so.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)I went on to point out that the appointment clearly does require the advice and consent of the Senate. And I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that stipulates that the Senate SHALL give their advice and consent and no one has so far directed me to such a passage.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Though I may have misinterpreted your intent as lending support to SOTOP's venture to ask where it says shall appoint.
I do think you are missing what is in plain sight...
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.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II
The Senate is bound by the same passage that gives them access to the appointment - the Senate shall appoint. The Senate is required to appoint Judges of the supreme Court, with the President, but they are not allowed to nominate.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)It does not say that the Senate SHALL give advice and consent, no matter how much you want it to.
Do have a Merry Christmas, though.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The advice and consent of the Senate is required to do so, so the Senate is required to give advice and consent.
If they do not want to confirm the nominee, their course of action is to reject the nominee, not sit on the thumbs and do nothing.
If any of us so blatantly ignored the requirements of our jobs, we would be fired.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......for the eventuality that the Senate refuses to give advice and/or consent. It doesn't say that if the Senate chooses to ignore the nomination, it is automatically assumed that they consented. It doesn't say that if they ignore the nomination, they have to sit in the corner. So they aren't really required to give it, it is, once again, it is just required for the nominee/appointee to take office.
Sitting Senates have been ignoring judicial nominations for some time. Democrats did it to GWB nominees and Republicans did it to Clinton and Obama nominees........and it probably goes back farther than that. The Democrats pulled the nuclear lever to stop the filibuster of lower court nominations, but not those for the Supreme Court. So, while unprecedented for a Supreme Court nomination, this action by the Republican Senate toward the Garland nomination shouldn't be such a big surprise all things considered.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)You are, however, correct in that there is no recourse stated. The authors must have assumed that the Senate would actually do their jobs, as stated, to be part of the appointment. They did not foresee the asshat McConell.
The fact that constitution does not outline a punishment for the failure of the Senate to do its duty does not change the fact that the Senate has failed to do its duty.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If there were a constitutional remedy, it would have already been taken and this conversation would have never taken place.
The McConell led Senate has failed to do their job and should be publicly shamed for it.
BTW, your argument on other federal judicial appointments was irrelevant as they are specifically cover in Article III, not Article II.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)bora13
(860 posts)Lets fight till six, and then have dinner, said Tweedledum.
Very well, the other said, rather sadly: and she can watch usonly youd better not come very close, he added: I generally hit everything I can seewhen I get really excited.
And I hit everything within reach, cried Tweedledum, whether I can see it or not!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I hope your Jobox and Creabird were astauand. Mizuxe slabdrill Zestybus!!!
bora13
(860 posts)Contrariwise!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Do you have anything relevant to say? Or is this a conversation based purely on nonsense?
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)They are not meeting their Constitutional obligation.
Takket
(21,616 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)spanone
(135,861 posts)Johnathan146
(141 posts)If you dont want to make a cake for a gay couple and Im the owner you are fired.
If you own the bakery then you are free to set your policy, although you are at risk of getting sued.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)True_Blue
(3,063 posts)hatrack
(59,592 posts).
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)What they have to decide is if they want to make a political statement. Depending on their individual employment contracts, that may be allowed, or not.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)THIS time , making political statements is all we have. This needs to become a major movement, supported by all of us who didn't vote for Trump. In 2000 it was Bush (the plaintiff) Vs Gore--but many seem to remember Gore as the "sore loserman," It was Bush suing to stop the Florida recount. Democrats folded then, with a "mere" half million more popular votes. I don't feel that ANYBODY believes that the Republicans wouldn't have caused a veritable revolution (by many accounts they'd planned for it) had the the Electoral College and popular votes been reversed. They'd certainly have prevented the situation in 2016, when, for the SECOND time in sixteen years the Democrats lost the White House, this time with a near three million more votes. You'd better believe that the Republicans would never have tolerated that situation in reverse. It even seemed Drumph was anticipating that with his constant claims of a "rigged" election. What is WRONG with the Democratic party? Why do individuals and non-political groups have to fight this fight with no official backing?
Kittycow
(2,396 posts)I get my hopes up but they always cave, it seems like.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Kittycow
(2,396 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)That is the question.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Anyone with the money can buy a ticket.
Not the same thing as a presidential inauguration.
treestar
(82,383 posts)gay people, atheists, etc. as customers every day and don't know it.
That's not the point - the point is the idiocy of the Trumpeters. They are never consistent. Their arguments can be seen through as hypocritical because you can always find a sample of where they did the opposite.
Cha
(297,528 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)the pharmacists and the Rockettes should do their job. I was surprised today to see so many people here on DU complaining about the Rockettes having to perform at the inauguration, even if they didn't want to. I don't see why they shouldn't have to do their job.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)One offers what can be life saving services and should not be able to apply their moral standards to a doctors prescription.
The other is optional entertainment.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Mrs. Doubtfire?
Kittycow
(2,396 posts)turbinetree
(24,713 posts)woman 17 of them and he has no empathy towards woman
And if I was with the "Rockettes" I would not dance, because this serial predator did this:
And this serial predator is going to be the president of this country
He is not my president
lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)Perfectly said.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)A decision that's served me well.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)In many situations it's only judicious to keep your mouth shut and mind your own business at work (although in many situations, such as teachers in the faculty room, political discussions are bound to occur---while you wouldn't bring it into the classroom}.
Liberty Belle
(9,535 posts)progressoid
(49,996 posts)Vinca
(50,302 posts)What woman would want to be ogled by an old lecher like Trump?
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)backstage at his beauty pageants so he can violate the privacy of the contestants and see them naked, without consent. Their union is disgraceful in their lack of support for these skilled workers; maybe they will at least have the decency to negotiate locks for the dressing room door so the lecher in chief won't come in to sneak a peek and grab some pussy. I can only imagine how degrading it must feel for the Rockettes to be coerced into doing this. It's not just a matter of "doing their job", as the outright refusal of most of the elite entertainment community to play the Inauguration has made crystal clear. The Rockettes' "job", as far as I know, has never entailed command performances for fascists and serial sexual predators.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Mrs. Doubtfire also?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(14,856 posts)It's likely going to be cold, so they should be like cheerleaders in Winter full-body covering!
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)No kicks. 2-3 minutes of interpretive dance and minimalist random movement. Long pants.
TNNurse
(6,929 posts)The inauguration is a ceremony in front of the Capitol building? Have there ever been dancers before? Will they dance before, after or during the prayer? I am not trying to be a smart ass (which I often am) but if they are to be part of some celebration event, that is one thing? But the inauguration is a big damn deal and should have dignity and some joy....but the Rockettes? Really?
randr
(12,414 posts)Girls without enough talent for Broadway flashing legs for octogenarians.
treestar
(82,383 posts)as soon as I came across a deplorable saying that about the Rockettes.