quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

You think this is an example of how pathetically government works.

I think this is a sterling example of how well it works. The only things that get done are ones that have broad consensus. Garland doesn't fit that bill.

Of course Mitch McConnell announced a complete obstruction of the process before Garland was ever mentioned.


Just sayin'

Kind of like Reid did with one house bill after another before he even saw it.
Just saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

FR

Kinda reminds me of Harry Reid. Funny how the shoe always ends up on the other foot, but it's the left foot that complains the most.

quote:

HOW HARRY REID IS DESTROYING THE SENATE
We often hear that Washington is “broken,” that Congress is “gridlocked,” and so on. While such complaints are usually imprecise and sometimes misguided, the sense that Congress is not functioning as intended is correct. Yesterday Senator Jeff Sessions delivered an important speech in which he decried the decline of the Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid. The extent to which the Senate’s traditions have been undermined to the detriment of all Americans is not generally appreciated, but the issue is a vital one. Senator Sessions said:

The Senate is where the great issues of our time are supposed to be examined, reviewed, and discussed before the whole nation. Yet, in the last few years, we have witnessed the dramatic erosion of Senators’ rights and the dismantling of the open legislative process.

We fund the government through massive omnibus bills that no one has had the time to read or analyze. Senators are stripped of their right to offer amendments. Bills are rushed through under threat of panic, crisis, or shutdown. Secret deals rule the day, and millions of Americans are essentially robbed of their ability to participate in the legislative process.

Under the tenure of Majority Leader Reid, the Senate is rapidly losing its historic role as a great deliberative body. If this continues, America will have lost something very precious.

One of the tactics by which Majority Leader Reid has suppressed Senators’ rights and blocked open debate has been a technique called “filling the tree.” What this means, basically, is that when a bill comes to the floor, the Leader will use his right of first recognition to fill all of the available amendment slots on a bill and block any other Senator from offering amendments. One man stands in the way of his 99 colleagues. But, not alone really. His power exists only as long as his majority concurs and supports his actions. This prevents the body from working its will, it prevents legislation from being improved, and it prevents Senators from being held accountable by their votes on the great issues of the day. That is, of course, why it’s done.

Our Majority Leader has used this tactic—filling the tree—80 times. To put this in perspective, the six previous Majority Leaders filled the tree 49 times—combined. Senator Reid has filled the tree on 30 more occasions than all of the six previous Majority Leaders did cumulatively over their tenures.

Link

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

The Senate voted to avoid holding itself accountable for doing its job. - Nice
In 1852, the Senate took no action on nominees... ok? So???

Neither of these events change that little piece of paper...

The U.S. Constitution

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.



The "Advice and consent" clause modifies the verb "appoint". CLEARLY. (to anyone with an understanding of the english language). It does NOT apply to the whole process.

It does NOT say:
"By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate", the President shall fill vacancies."

It DOES say The President shall nominate someone and will appoint them with advice and consent of the Senate. It intentionally gives the President, the power to execute the process. The ONLY part for which that the Senate can give its advice and consent, is the appointment of an already nominated nominee. (sorry to be redundant with that, but you keep failing to understand)

You can cite all the history of childish behavior you like. NONE of it changes that piece of paper, which is written in english.


Oh, just for your information... Here is what the Senate is OBLIGATED to do:

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"


Oh phoque...not the constitution again. That only applies to the second ammendment.
You are just showing off. trying to clutter up the discussion with relevant facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If what you say is true as I understand it, the president would be able to appt. a justice that was voted down by the senate. That would be a very interesting scenario.

No I did not say that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And yet year after year incumbents win 96% of their battles.
Proving this particular poll shows the fallacy from trying to extrapolate from polls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And yet year after year incumbents win 96% of their battles.
Proving this particular poll shows the fallacy from trying to extrapolate from polls.

Agreed it is a fallacy to extrapolate election predictions from it.

But what it DOES clearly show is the approval % of the President VS Congress (CURRENTLY).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And yet year after year incumbents win 96% of their battles.
Proving this particular poll shows the fallacy from trying to extrapolate from polls.

Agreed it is a fallacy to extrapolate election predictions from it.

But what it DOES clearly show is the approval % of the President VS Congress (CURRENTLY).

Again, meaningless.

90% of Americans cannot name their two senators.

So the people ranking congress poorly

a). either do not represent the average american -or-
b). vote approval without knowing their representative
c). bah. If you don't see the problems with making this kind of comparison, I"m not listing any more.

For the statistic to mean something, it would have to be predictive of something. And it is completely not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Was the congressional approval rating for Congress as a body or for a person approving THEIR Congressmen?

If it's the former, that makes sense and incumbents would be voted in because voters are as stubborn and unchanging as their Congressmen

If it's the latter, it's just sad

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And yet year after year incumbents win 96% of their battles.
Proving this particular poll shows the fallacy from trying to extrapolate from polls.

Agreed it is a fallacy to extrapolate election predictions from it.
But what it DOES clearly show is the approval % of the President VS Congress (CURRENTLY).

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
As for the original topic, the phrase is Advice AND Consent, not Advice AND/OR Consent

quote:

It was a smart move on Obama's part to demonstrate the character of his opposition
As far as tradition goes, it is tradition, not in the constitution

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)