|
MasterJaguar01 -> RE: ANOTHER MASSIVE WIN FOR TRUMP - Gorsuch Confirmed! (4/7/2017 9:45:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Gorsuch confirmed!!! [sm=dancer.gif]
This is what the presidential elections were all about. Americans are safe from leftist judicial activists for the time being. Let's get a few more now, pack the bench. Maybe Ginsberg will retire?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gorsuch-idUSKBN1791GR
It is really sad. Gorsuch is an illegitimate justice, filling a seat that should never been vacant.
It is a sad day for America, that the Republican party has put party ovr country, and circumvented our Constitution.
Blind partisan bullshit. The Dems vowed never to fill a vacancy in the last year of a Republican, so this is a direct application of their own rule.
Calling the duly elected government illegitimate is a call to civil war, which this is nothing new from the left.
Not partisan at all. The President of the United States nominated someone to fill the vacancy (as was his Constitutional obligation). The Senate, despite their Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent, simply ignored the nomination. (A clearly unconstituional move).
As fo dems vowing never to fill a vacancy in the last year of a reppublican, you are mistaken.
Joe Biden, in the context of Clarence Thomas, said there was too much political rancoor over this nomination, and suggested that a hypothetical future nomination wait until the day after the election. He wasn't even referring to an actual vacancy at the time. There was no action in the Senate related to those words. It wwas just a speech.
To get from that to "The Dems vowed to never confirm a nominee in the last year of a Republican presidency." Is nonsensical and ridiculous. No Democrat conttrolled senate has ever donee anything like this.
Congress' role is to advise and consent. They advised that the voters would choose the president who should fill the vacant seat, and the ensuing referendum gave us President Trump, who chose Gorsuch.
And you should know by now to never doubt me:
quote:
[image]http://www.thegeekprofessor.com//graphics/posts/2009.11/schumer.jpg[/image]
Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN 07/27/07 05:33 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.
"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."
Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.
“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”
Full article at: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146
First of all, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of "Advice and Consent" in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. The entire section is about the powers of the President. (NOT the Senate). The President has the power to nominate, by and with consent of the Senate. The Senate does NOT have the power to advise the President that they will wait for the next election. They only are REQUIRED to provide advice and consent on a nominee. (And reject that nominee only for cause).
The President has plenary power.
Perhaps you will listen to the Heritage Foundation:
This clause contemplates three sequential acts for the appointment of principal officers—the nomination of the President, the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Appointment of the Official by the President. This clause applies to principal officers in contradistinction to inferior officers, whose appointment is addressed in the next portion of the clause. Although the Senate must confirm principal officers, including Ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, Congress may choose to require that any officers whose office is "established by Law" be confirmed by the Senate, whether they be inferior or not.
The important questions for principal officers and their confirmation are, first, whether the President has plenary power of nomination or whether the Constitution limits this power by requiring the President to seek prenomination advice; second, whether the President must nominate only those who meet qualifications set by Congress; and, third, whether the Senate has plenary power to reject nominees or whether that power is circumscribed by some standard.
Both the debates among the Framers and subsequent practice confirm that the President has plenary power to nominate. He is not obliged to take advice from the Senate on the identity of those he will nominate, nor does the Congress have authority to set qualifications for principal officers. The Senate possesses the plenary authority to reject or confirm the nominee, although its weaker structural position means that it is likely to confirm most nominees, absent compelling reasons to reject them.
The very grammar of the clause is telling: the act of nomination is separated from the act of appointment by a comma and a conjunction. Only the latter act is qualified by the phrase "advice and consent." Furthermore, it is not at all anomalous to use the word advice with respect to the action of the Senate in confirming an appointment. The Senate's consent is advisory because confirmation does not bind the President to commission and empower the confirmed nominee. Instead, after receiving the Senate's advice and consent, the President may deliberate again before appointing the nominee.
Secondly, your article on CHuck Schumer doeesn't do anything to support your assertion. All Schumer was saying, is that they should try harder to get more votes to oppose Bush nominees.
Thirdly, (just simply as an FYI) the voters chose Barack Obama to be President in 2012 to serve a 4 year tterm. And BTW: The voters (I certainly was not one of them) chose Hillary Clinton to serve 4 years in te 2016 election.
The bottom line is, the Reppublican controlled Senate illegally and unconstitutionally blocked a constituionally prescribeed nominee by an elected President. Thus making the current vacancy, and by extension, Gorsuch's entire appointment, illegitimate, and unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
