Robert Reich on the Supreme Court Vacancy

[Cigar]

'I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the circus Republicans have created in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Pay no attention. Here are the 4 realities:

1. Under the Constitution, when a Supreme Court vacancy arises, the President is authorized to (indeed, the Constitution says he "shall") nominate whomever he or she wishes to fill that vacancy. A majority of the Senate must then confirm in order for that nominee to become a Supreme Court Justice.

2. The Republicans now hold a majority of 54 in the Senate. Each of the 54 (as well as every other Senator) has a constitutional right to vote on the President's nomination. If just 4 Republicans vote in favor of it, and all 44 Democrats and the Senate’s 2 Independents also vote in favor, and the president of the Senate (Vice President Joe Biden), casts the deciding vote in favor, then the nominee is confirmed.

3. The Constitution does not give the majority leader of the Senate the right to hold up a vote on the President's nomination. He cannot usurp the rights of senators to cast such a vote.

4. Everything you have heard other than these three points -- all the blather and bluster coming from Mitch McConnell or any other Republican senator, from Republican presidential hopefuls, and from right-wing pundits -- is irrelevant.


https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf

[Chris]

Reich should read this:

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.

[Standing Wolf]

Reich should read this:

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.

Were you under the impression that something in what you posted contradicted or disproved Reich's statement of the facts?

[del]

Were you under the impression that something in what you posted contradicted or disproved Reich's statement of the facts?

yeah, he is

lol

[Chris]

Were you under the impression that something in what you posted contradicted or disproved Reich's statement of the facts?

Yes. It doesn't say anything close to "A majority of the Senate must then confirm in order for that nominee to become a Supreme Court Justice." It speaks only of what the President must do.

It also says nothing about rights, so Reich is only half wrong there.

[HoneyBadger]

3. The Constitution does not give the majority leader of the Senate the right to hold up a vote on the President's nomination. He cannot usurp the rights of senators to cast such a vote.




It gives the Senate the right to make their own rules regarding how they operate. Period.

And if a rule states that a nominee must make it past a committee first, it's 100% Constitutional.

Reich is an idiot.

[Cletus]

Were you under the impression that something in what you posted contradicted or disproved Reich's statement of the facts?

That may not, but this does.

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states...

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. "

Chris was correct... Reich really should read the Constitution before he says anything else that makes him look stupid.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes. It doesn't say anything close to "A majority of the Senate must then confirm in order for that nominee to become a Supreme Court Justice." It speaks only of what the President must do.

It also says nothing about rights, so Reich is only half wrong there.

The way Reich phrased it has obviously confused you, so let me help. If the appointee is going to be confirmed, a majority of Senate members must, in fact, have voted in favor of that confirmation. He isn't saying that any particular number of Senate members must vote for confirmation, period, full stop - only that for confirmation to take place, that is what must have happened.

[Matty]

The way Reich phrased it has obviously confused you, so let me help. If the appointee is going to be confirmed, a majority of Senate members must, in fact, have voted in favor of that confirmation. He isn't saying that any particular number of Senate members must vote for confirmation, period, full stop - only that for confirmation to take place, that is what must have happened.


Confirmation will take place! In due time! Please be patient.

[Chris]

The way Reich phrased it has obviously confused you, so let me help. If the appointee is going to be confirmed, a majority of Senate members must, in fact, have voted in favor of that confirmation. He isn't saying that any particular number of Senate members must vote for confirmation, period, full stop - only that for confirmation to take place, that is what must have happened.

It's Reich who needs schooling. He presumes they must act and act now.

I just don't see any sort of must for the Senate.

I understand convention is they at some point will advise and vote.

[Chris]

It gives the Senate the right to make their own rules regarding how they operate. Period.

And if a rule states that a nominee must make it past a committee first, it's 100% Constitutional.

Reich is an idiot.

Agree, except Reich is not an idiot, he's an economist...or wait....

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. --Hayek

[Professor Peabody]

The Senate is a busy place. I'm sure any Obama nominee will be considered when their turn comes up. Next year sounds about right.

[MisterVeritis]

It gives the Senate the right to make their own rules regarding how they operate. Period.

And if a rule states that a nominee must make it past a committee first, it's 100% Constitutional.

Reich is an idiot.
Reich isn't but he knows most Democrats are. Watch how quickly the sheep fall in line.

[Peter1469]

Judicial nominations have been held up for years.

[del]

Judicial nominations have been held up for years.

feel free to name a scotus nomination that took years

[Matty]

feel free to name a scotus nomination that took years


Wait till we have one! Be patient. Soon as we know you will know!

[Green Arrow]

Yes. It doesn't say anything close to "A majority of the Senate must then confirm in order for that nominee to become a Supreme Court Justice." It speaks only of what the President must do.

It also says nothing about rights, so Reich is only half wrong there.

The only way a justice can sit on the SCOTUS is if a majority of the Senate votes "yes."

So, yes, a majority of the Senate must confirm in order for the nominee to be a SCOTUS justice. Otherwise, the nominee can't be a SCOTUS justice.

[Chris]

The only way a justice can sit on the SCOTUS is if a majority of the Senate votes "yes."

So, yes, a majority of the Senate must confirm in order for the nominee to be a SCOTUS justice. Otherwise, the nominee can't be a SCOTUS justice.

Or they can choose not to confirm. The President must get their advice and consent but they need not give it.

[Green Arrow]

Or they can choose not to confirm. The President must get their advice and consent but they need not give it.

That is true.

Is this your way of acknowledging that you misinterpreted Reich?

[Chris]

That is true.

Is this your way of acknowledging that you misinterpreted Reich?

No. I don't think he stated this part correctly.

Trivial example. Tot goes to father to ask if he can go out and play. Father say you must ask your mother for permission. That obligates the son to seek out and obtain permission from mother. It doesn't obligate the mother to do anything. She may well say you must ask your father for permission. --Here, the Senate may advise send us someone we can even vote on.

Just going by the text.

[del]

lol

[Green Arrow]

No. I don't think he stated this part correctly.

He did. In order for a nominee to be seated on the SCOTUS, a majority of the senate has to confirm them. That is a true statement. If only 49 senators vote yes and 51 vote no, the nominee won't sit on the SCOTUS. But if 51 vote yes and 49 vote no, or there is a tie and Vice President Joe Biden breaks the tie with a yes, then the nominee is elevated to the SCOTUS.

So a majority of the senate must confirm a nominee in order for them to be on SCOTUS.

[Chris]

There is precedent for my reading.


...The president has the duty to appoint officials — he “shall nominate . . . judges of the Supreme Court.” But the executive has this power only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Critically, the Senate is under no obligation to give the authority to the president.

This disjunction — the president shall nominate, but the Senate does not have to confirm — activates the very sort of structural bulwarks that the Framers hardwired into the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s unanimous 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning reaffirmed this foundational lesson: When there is inter-branch disagreement that cannot be resolved through the political process, no nominee can be confirmed. Justice Scalia’s prescient concurring opinion in that case reminds us that senatorial refusal to confirm is not an unforeseen flaw but an intentionally designed feature of the Constitution. This is true even where it frustrates the orderly functioning of the federal government.

The case began in 2011 when Senate Republicans blocked a vote on President Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board....

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the president’s legal defense of his action and found that the recess appointments were unconstitutional. But all nine justices went even further than that, specifically refuting the president’s argument that gridlock justified his breach of the separation of powers....

@ The Framers Made the Appointment Process Explicitly Political (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431315/supreme-court-appointments-political-exactly-founders-intended)

Further...


Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

...Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.

President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!

Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year....

@ There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees (http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/)

[Chris]

feel free to name a scotus nomination that took years

See post #23.

[Chris]

He did. In order for a nominee to be seated on the SCOTUS, a majority of the senate has to confirm them. That is a true statement. If only 49 senators vote yes and 51 vote no, the nominee won't sit on the SCOTUS. But if 51 vote yes and 49 vote no, or there is a tie and Vice President Joe Biden breaks the tie with a yes, then the nominee is elevated to the SCOTUS.

So a majority of the senate must confirm a nominee in order for them to be on SCOTUS.

But the Senate doesn't have to do anything. See post #43.

The Constitution imposes a requirement on the President alone, not the Senate.

[Green Arrow]

But the Senate doesn't have to do anything. See post #43.

The Constitution imposes a requirement on the President alone, not the Senate.

They don't have to do anything, but the only way a nominee becomes a member of the SCOTUS is if a majority of the senate votes yes. So if the nominee is going to the SCOTUS a majority of the senate must vote yes.

It's really, extremely simple.

[Chris]

They don't have to do anything, but the only way a nominee becomes a member of the SCOTUS is if a majority of the senate votes yes. So if the nominee is going to the SCOTUS a majority of the senate must vote yes.

It's really, extremely simple.


I agree, it's really, extremely simple.

[hanger4]

There is precedent for my reading.



@ The Framers Made the Appointment Process Explicitly Political (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431315/supreme-court-appointments-political-exactly-founders-intended)

Further...



@ There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees (http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/)

You should start a thread with this title and link;

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

Might help in stopping the strawmen and misconceptions.

[Green Arrow]

I agree, it's really, extremely simple.

"I misinterpreted Reich."

Nope, not seeing those words yet.

[del]

"I misinterpreted Reich."

Nope, not seeing those words yet.

don't hold your breath

[Chris]

"I misinterpreted Reich."

Nope, not seeing those words yet.

No, you're not. Not unless you post them.

[Chris]

You should start a thread with this title and link;

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

Might help in stopping the strawmen and misconceptions.


Not many want that.

[hanger4]

Not many want that.
Tis why I saved the link. :grin: