GOP SENATE TO OBAMA : DON'T BOTHER NOMINATING TO THE COURT

[liberalnarb]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans united behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in insisting that President Barack Obama's successor fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia's death. Democrats looking to reclaim the Senate majority immediately accused them of putting politics ahead of their constitutional responsibility.

Vulnerable GOP incumbents in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Ohio - all states that Obama won twice - echoed McConnell's contention that the winner of the presidency in November's election should choose the next jurist. Democrats counter that Obama is president until Jan. 20, 2017, and has every constitutional right to nominate Scalia's replacement.

Obama has said he will fulfill his constitutional duty and nominate a replacement in due time. His Democratic allies made it clear that denying the president that right would be an unprecedented step and argued it would enshrine the GOP as "the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history."

"By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a scathing op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Post.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCALIA_SENATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-16-10-49-33

[Feeling the Bern]

1. we expected anything less?

[apnu]

5. No I don't believe we expected anything less.

This is exactly what we expected. And its our job to call them out, all day, every day until election day. The Electorate needs to know that the GOP is an obstructionist party that has no interest in operating an America 'of the people, by the people', nor do they have any interest in the Constitution or the oaths they've taken to uphold our Constitution.

[houston16revival]

2. They Swore an Oath to the Constitution

treason and perjury come to mind

[liberalnarb]

4. They piss on the constitution.

That how w got into office

[onenote]

27. And what Constitutional mandate would they be violating?

The Constitution does not require the Senate to confirm Presidential nominees. And how the Senate decides to conduct its business -- in other words how it goes about not confirming a nominee -- is not something that any court can or will review.

This is partisan politics and it ultimately up to the voters to decide whether they will allow it or not.

[houston16revival]

29. Advise and Consent

By refusing to do your job, you are not advising.

You are stonewalling. And you'd be fired in any other business in America - pronto!

[onenote]

33. The history of the advise and consent provision doesn't support your conclusion

The advise and consent provision has its origins in a similarly worded provision that was part of the Massachusetts constitution at the time of the Constitutional Convention. There were a number of competing proposals for how members of the judiciary should be appointed. For example, some proposals called for the legislature to appoint members of the judiciary. Others proposed that judicial nominations be made by the executive but with an "advisory" council. Yet others -- and this was one of the most popular options - was for the executive to nominate judges who would take office unless the Senate exercised a discretionary "veto" power over the nomination by affirmatively rejecting it.

Ultimately, however, the framers opted for the Massachusetts style advise and consent which was non-mandatory -- there is no obligation (no "shall" as it were) -- for the Senate to do anything if it doesn't want to consent to a nomination. It can sit on its hands. What keeps them from doing so in most instances is political pressure. And that, not any sort of legal proceeding, will determine whether and to what extent the Senate engages in a review of Obama's nominee.

The advise and consent clause is not limited to SCOTUS nominations. It applies to all sorts of nominations. And there have been numerous instances throughout history of the Senate receiving a nomination from a President and essentially putting it on a shelf.

No court will ever direct the Senate in how to conduct its business in this regard.

[graegoyle]

32. They are telling the President not to do his job!

They are telling this black President not to do what the American people elected Obama to do: Be the President. They pledged that they would obstruct him before he even took office. They had a press conference to tell the world that that was their intention.

And if anyone wants to criticize that I pointed out that this President happens to be black, that is a major reason why the Republicans are doing what they are doing the way they are doing it. Another part is that he is a Democrat.

[onenote]

34. And what they're doing is politically stupid. But its not unconstitutional to be politically stupid

They can (and do) tell the President all sorts of things. But that doesn't prevent the President from doing them and it won't prevent the President from putting forth a nominee to replace Scalia.

[stonecutter357]

3. Good Hillary Clinton can put OBAMA on the bench after she is elected.

[liberalnarb]

7. Obama doesn't want that job.

He's taken enough crap from these assholes during his presidency. But don't worry. Bernie will make sure the replacement opposes citizens united

[LeFleur1]

30. Terrible Precident

If Bernie were elected President, and felt he could demand a sure vote on an important issue before the Supreme Court, so could another, Republican President.

No, what should be demanded is a clear and concise mind, actions that have proven the nominee has the good of the citizens in mind with equality for all, as well as an appreciation for laws of the land that would bring that equality to all. The nominee should believe with all her/his heart that the Constitution was written to further the goals of America, liberty and justice for all and that it was written as a check to make the government work for everyone.

Bernie is wrong to make such a demand. He can go to Congress and demand that they get rid of Citizens United. Amendment to the Constitution? He should get busy and round up all those in the House and Senate who could make that happen, then campaign throughout the country for the passage of such an amendment. Having a person promise decisions she/he would make before even being nominated is twisted.

[onenote]

11. Many reasons that won't happen

Here are two:
There are many cases in the judicial pipeline that involve challenges of and/or defenses of actions taken by the Obama administration. Having Obama sit on the Court for such cases would raise conflict of interest issues.

Also, do you really think that after being President, Obama would settle for being an associate Justice of the Supreme Court (the least senior associate justice at that), getting assignments for which opinions he gets to write from John Roberts?

Not. Going. To. Happen.

[Cryptoad]

6. Senate Do Your Solemnly Oath Sworn Duty!

[liberalnarb]

48. Can you imagine the reaction if it was Dems doing this?

[Vinca]

8. We need to win the Senate back so, worst case scenario, Obama has 17 days to appoint.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Where does '17 days' come from?

There's no time limit.

[Vinca]

42. This Congress, which is dominated by Republicans, ends on January 3.

The next Congress would then begin. If there is a Democratic majority in the Senate in the new Congress, they would be available for a vote on an Obama nominee from January 3 until inauguration day, January 20. If a Democrat is elected president, it isn't as critical, but if a Republican is elected we can only imagine who they would install in the Supreme Court.

[Reter]

58. Even if they lose 8 seats, they will still have 47

They can filibuster, and then 60 votes are needed. They would certainly hold out another 17 days.

[houston16revival]

10. Retirement

is one option if anyone decides to

Politicizing the Court? Haven't the Republicans?

Obama could nominate and confirm more than one in 17 days.

[onenote]

12. Can you explain the 17 days?

[0rganism]

18. if GOP wins the presidency & Dems win the senate

there's a 17-day window where the new senate convenes before the new president takes office.
Jan 3 - Jan 20, 2017
Dems could push through a nominee using the "nuclear option" during that time

[onenote]

21. thanks. that does seem like an unlikely scenario however

The Democrats losing the White House but winning the Senate seems like an unlikely outcome.

[longship]

20. 17 days between the start of the next congress to the inauguration of the next POTUS. nt

[Shadowflash]

13. No better reason to do it.

Let them spend the better part of a year looking like petty assholes.

[Roy Rolling]

14. Put Another Way...

We strict Constitutionalists want Obama to not be so strict with the Constitution, and give it a liberal interpretation.

[Fuddnik]

15. Arrest every last one of them for treason.

They are betraying the entire country for political purposes.

Whining crybabies can't get their way.

[longship]

23. Pshaw! Not treason.

Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution.

This might be blinkered partisan obstruction, but that does not qualify for treason. Nor should it.

[onenote]

24. +1

It's embarrassing how often DUers cry "treason" at things that aren't remotely treason. Or even illegal.

[Codeine]

43. That's not even vaguely the definition of treason. nt

[Reter]

59. Nicolás Maduro would agree with you

n/t

[earthside]

16. This isn't about Sanders and Clinton.

I would like to see both camps focus on what the Repuglicans are doing and not get distracted by which potential Democratic nominee might make the better future, theoretical Supreme Court appointment.

That being said ...

Isn’t it ironic that many so-called ‘constitutional conservatives' suddenly become 'cafeteria constitutionalists' when it fits their current political agenda?

In this case, it is even more ironic that the replacement for Scalia, the great proponent of "original meaning", would be made the object of Republican political opposition to Pres. Obama -- when the meaning and plan of the Constitution is quite clear -- the Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty when the President makes his Court nomination.

The Repuglicans may very well have made a yuuge strategic mistake here and it ought to be exploited by all decent Americans. Even many of my Facebook conservative 'friends' have noted that in this case the process of the Constitution ought to be followed.

If the Repuglicans are insistent on going down this anti-constitutional obstructionist route, I'd like to see Pres. Obama nominate Mariano-Florentino "Tino" Cuéllar and make it very, very hot for them politically.

Franky, if Pres. Obama, Senate Democrats, and Sen. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, play this smart, the Repuglicans will likely cave sooner rather than later -- because they could lose it all.

[redstatebluegirl]

17. Isn't Johnson behind Feingold by double digits in Wisconsin already?

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Kirk is unlikely to win if he stonewalls

Johnson is guaranteed to lose if he does.

[Sunlei]

19. Republicans who run for reelection & ignore the constitution & their duty will lose.

Anyway, America is better off without the dissenter Scalia's 'vote'.

[Turbineguy]

22. Governing is against

their principles.

[rtracey]

25. THIS SHOULD BE A BATTLE CRY

This should be one on the biggest call to vote by the democrats. Lets make sure of 3 things in this election...

1. elect a democrat for president
2. establish control of the senate by voting out any senator up for election in blue states that stick by McConnell in this constitutional failure
3. place a progressive thinking justice on the supreme court that will use his head and heart and not his wallet.

[Cjas]

26. God

God chose to take Scalia now therefore he picked Obama to name the next SCOTUS appointment. Tell Ted Cruz.

[OldRedneck]

28. President Obama DOES NOT have the right to appoint a new Supreme Court justice

HE HAS A *****DUTY**** TO APPOINT A JUSTICE.

No "right" about it. DUTY. REQUIREMENT.

And the Senate has a DUTY to consider his nominee.

As Senator Eliz. Warren said, Art 2 Sec 2 says the President appoints with the advice and consent of the Senate -- there's nothing in there about "unless it's in the last few months of a black man's term."

We need to say this every chance we get: IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO NOMINATE AND THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CONSIDER.

Not that facts, the Constitution, and doing the right thing will matter to Republicans.

Today's GOP likely is the most evil force in American politics EVER. But that's for another thread.

[geomon666]

36. I wish I could upvote this post.

Spot on.

[onenote]

38. Not really.

The fact that the President "shall" appoint member of the judiciary as well as a thousand other officers of the United States does not compel that such an appointment be made at a particular time or, for all practical purposes, at all. There almost always are vacancies in ambassadorships or other offices that are filled by Presidential appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. And every President leaves office with out a nominee having been named to fill all such vacancies. And no one can do anything about it -- there is no Constitutional imperative that makes it unlawful to not fill a vacancy. So if by "duty" you mean "obligation", the answer is no, there is no "duty" to appoint a SCOTUS justice any more than there is a "duty" to appoint an undersecretary of the Department of the Interior.

Moreover, the Senate is not under any particular mandate to act on a Presidential nominee, whether its to fill a Supreme Court vacancy or that Interior Department undersecretary position. The Constitution treats them all as the same. And the Senate, of both parties, often gets nominations and puts them on a shelf without even giving them a hearing.

The difference between SCOTUS nominations and my hypothetical Interior undersecretary nomination is political -- there is little political pressure to fill the latter and much more political pressure to fill the former since vacancies in the former are more consequential. But that political "duty" is not the same as a constitutional obligation.

[warrprayer]

46. Going to do

What SantaFe should have done.
PLONK!

[turbinetree]

31. The Republican party .........................................

Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016


It is about getting a Progressive President, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and State and Local Legislatures

Democracy begins with you-----------------tag your it-----------------Bernie Sanders/ Thom Hartmann

Democracy is not a spectator sport--------------get involved-----------------Thom Hartmann

[C_U_L8R]

35. Our best revenge

is to vote these republican fucks out of office.
GOTV probably never mattered more.
You know what to do,

[IcyPeas]

39. aren't there any friggen grown ups in the republican senate?

why do they all agree to play these stupid games?

[Orsino]

40. Advise and consent, or resign. n/t

[houston16revival]

41. Senate GOP Should Do Their Jobs

If they want to vote no, reject three nominees, fine, that is their
right and privilege.

But by shirking their responsibility they are making mockery of the Constitution
and disrespecting its intent. These are the strict constructionalists, aren't they?

Or only when it suits their purposes?

THEY ARE TRYING TO VOTE NO without voting at all, and that is avoiding
responsibility for their actions. Childish brats, just like their presidential nominees.

[onenote]

47. unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution prevents them from doing exactly that

except political pressure, which we should try to put on them through every means possible.

The reason I say that nothing in the Constitution prevents them from stonewalling the nomination is that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the framers came close to adopting an approach for judicial nominations that would have required the Senate to "veto" a nomination -- in other words, the nomination would become effective unless, within a set period of time, the Senate voted to reject it.

But that approach was ultimately jettisoned for what is known as the Massachusetts approach, where a nomination must be agreed to and there is no obligation on the Senate to act to reject it.

I'm not pointing this out because I like it, but in the interest of having folks understand the actual Constitutional issues at play.

[4bernie28]

44. Politics these days are a true disgrace

[yellowcanine]

49. Grassley walking it back a bit and tosses Mitch at the bus.

Didn't actually throw him under it but still.....Maybe Charlie suddenly remembered he is up for reelection?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1350632

[olddots]

50. olddots to GOP senate

[roamer65]

51. Go for it you stupid, useless Repuke fucks.

You all are a waste of taxpayer dollars and deserve to be thrown out of office in November.

[PeterK]

52. Bernie supporters should start here...

Bernie supporters should start here with there revolution if serious. If Bernie is elected he will most likely be facing a republican senate and house.. So his vision of $15 min wage .. free college ect.. is asking alot to say the least.. so start the revolution here make a push for republicans to do there jobs and shoot down Obama's selection for supreme court in a timely manner..

[uppityperson]

53. Welcome to DU. Would you please clarify for me?

Do you mean Bernie supporters should pressure Congress to quickly act on Obama's pick for SCOTUS? Or do you mean Bernie should work with the Rebubs to block Obama's choices and thereby show he's willng to work with them? Thanks.

[PeterK]

55. Bernie Sanders Revolution

Bernie supporters should pressure republicans to do there jobs and act on Obama's choice in a timely manner. it will not pass.. unfortunately

[uppityperson]

56. They are indeed obstructionist, but they should be able to get someone in.

[Major Hogwash]

54. President Obama has the Constitutional right to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.

The Senate Republicans must abide by the Constitution of the United States.

[onenote]

57. The problem is that the repubs have a Constitutional right to reject the nominee.

The principal restraint through history has been political and a recognition that what goes around comes around. Right now the repubs believe that from a political standpoint, they have to satisfy their rabid base. And they don't care about the ultimate consequences for the country and/or don't believe that the Democrats will sink to their level.

They're not the first to play politics with Court but they're taking it to a new level and the best we can hope for is that the electorate shows them the error of their ways.