WaPo: Three Pinocchios for declaring Senate’s “constitutional duty” to vote on Garlan

[hanger4]

The Presidents words;

"Tomorrow, Judge Garland will travel to the Hill to begin meeting with senators, one-on-one. I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote. If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics — everything. It will provoke an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat, and make it increasingly impossible for any President, Democrat or Republican, to carry out their constitutional function. The reputation of the Supreme Court will inevitably suffer. Faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. Our democracy will ultimately suffer, as well.

I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it’s time for the Senate to do theirs."

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-declaring-senates-constitutional-duty-to-vote-on-garland/

The WaPo article;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/

The "constitutional duty" silliness has been put to rest.

[Green Arrow]

I agree that they should hold a hearing and an up-or-down vote, but I agree it's a stretch to say they have a constitutional duty to vote. They don't, they just have a constitutional responsibility to hold a hearing. If they reach the end of that process and don't find the candidate worthy of a vote, they don't have any responsibility or obligation to hold a vote.

[Cletus]

I agree that they should hold a hearing and an up-or-down vote, but I agree it's a stretch to say they have a constitutional duty to vote. They don't, they just have a constitutional responsibility to hold a hearing. If they reach the end of that process and don't find the candidate worthy of a vote, they don't have any responsibility or obligation to hold a vote.

They have no obligation to hold a hearing.

[del]

"mom, they did it too"

what giants of history, what statesmen

what horseshit

[Green Arrow]

They have no obligation to hold a hearing.

I disagree with you, but then we're probably looking at this from two different angles.

[Peter1469]

They should hold hearings and when the election is close, if it looks like win for the felon (Hillary) vote this guy in pronto.

[hanger4]

"mom, they did it too"

what giants of history, what statesmen

what horseshit

Should of read the WaPo link;

"The Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.”

"According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”

Ya might not have posted so foolishly.

[del]

Should of read the WaPo link; "The Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” "According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.” Ya might not have posted so foolishly. bring called foolish by a koolaid swiller really doesn't have much sting. you can put all the lipstick and perfume on the gop's childish behavior that you want, but it's still gonna oink.

[Chris]

They should hold hearings and when the election is close, if it looks like win for the felon (Hillary) vote this guy in pronto.

Now that sounds smart. Lemon, CNN, had 3 lawyers on discussing it and they mentioned postponing to see who's elected, then holding hearings, but dismissed as having too little time. But if they held hearings and postponed decision, they could accept to avoid a lefty or reject to get a righty.

[Chris]

bring called foolish by a koolaid swiller really doesn't have much sting. you can put all the lipstick and perfume on the gop's childish behavior that you want, but it's still gonna oink.

Good grief, so bitter...

http://i.snag.gy/ioGqT.jpg

[maineman]

Now that sounds smart. Lemon, CNN, had 3 lawyers on discussing it and they mentioned postponing to see who's elected, then holding hearings, but dismissed as having too little time. But if they held hearings and postponed decision, they could accept to avoid a lefty or reject to get a righty.

If the GOP stalls that long, and, as expected, Hillary is trouncing the Donald in the polls, Obama will simply withdraw the nomination and let Hillary pick the militant, feminist juror of HER chosing.

[Chris]

If the GOP stalls that long, and, as expected, Hillary is trouncing the Donald in the polls, Obama will simply withdraw the nomination and let Hillary pick the militant, feminist juror of HER chosing.

True, politics is such fun sport.

[Crepitus]

They should hold hearings and when the election is close, if it looks like win for the felon (Hillary) vote this guy in pronto.
Oh yea, there's the honest way to do it.

[hanger4]

bring called foolish by a koolaid swiller really doesn't have much sting. you can put all the lipstick and perfume on the gop's childish behavior that you want, but it's still gonna oink.

I'm sorry del, stand up for a while and the butthurt won't be as noticeable.

BTW when did performing a constitutional duty become "childish behavior" ??

[hanger4]

They should hold hearings and when the election is close, if it looks like win for the felon (Hillary) vote this guy in pronto.

That works too.

[hanger4]

Oh yea, there's the honest way to do it.

There is nothing dishonest about the way it's being handled now. Constitutional duties and all.

[Crepitus]

There is nothing dishonest about the way it's being handled now. Constitutional duties and all.
We need a sarcasm font.

[Chris]

We need a sarcasm font.

Been discussion for years on creation of such a font but never any results. Would look like:

http://i.snag.gy/z59xa.jpg

[AZ Jim]

They should hold hearings and when the election is close, if it looks like win for the felon (Hillary) vote this guy in pronto.and the beat goes on........same ole bullshit Pete....

[Chris]

Been discussion for years on creation of such a font but never any results. Would look like:

http://i.snag.gy/z59xa.jpg


Did some more research and found some, http://fontzone.net/search?q=reverse, but the reason they aren't used is, even if vBulletin added, each user would have to download and install the font.

[texan]

Listen, at least respect the republicans for being honest agree or not. The answer is and will always be no on this subject.

They don't need to hold fake hearings to not vote or consider this at man at this time.

Don't waste anyone's time.

[domer76]

Don't waste anyone's time.

You mean like the non-waste of time on the 50-60+ attempts to repeal the ACA? THAT kind of wasted time?

Your do-nothing conservatives have been paid to do just that - NOTHING, since they got into office. And you are all-of-a-sudden concerned about THIS waste of time? Laughable.

It matters little to me. It's a crap shoot that the Republicans have to take. They will probably end up fucking themselves anyway.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree that they should hold a hearing and an up-or-down vote, but I agree it's a stretch to say they have a constitutional duty to vote. They don't, they just have a constitutional responsibility to hold a hearing. If they reach the end of that process and don't find the candidate worthy of a vote, they don't have any responsibility or obligation to hold a vote.

I have no major disagreement with what you said there. I would add though that the constitution does not require the Senate to act if they have decided to withhold their consent.

[HoneyBadger]

I disagree with you, but then we're probably looking at this from two different angles.


If you look at this from a constitutional standpoint, which after all, is the only thing that really matters...

Article 1, section 5:

...Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

The Senate has determined that all nominees must pass through the judiciary committee. If they do not feel a candidate is qualified, they are under no obligation to send the nominee to the floor for a vote.

100% Constitutional.

[hanger4]

If you look at this from a constitutional standpoint, which after all, is the only thing that really matters...

Article 1, section 5:

...Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

The Senate has determined that all nominees must pass through the judiciary committee. If they do not feel a candidate is qualified, they are under no obligation to send the nominee to the floor for a vote.

100% Constitutional.

Or a hearing.

[zelmo1234]

`
You mean like the non-waste of time on the 50-60+ attempts to repeal the ACA? THAT kind of wasted time?

Your do-nothing conservatives have been paid to do just that - NOTHING, since they got into office. And you are all-of-a-sudden concerned about THIS waste of time? Laughable.

It matters little to me. It's a crap shoot that the Republicans have to take. They will probably end up $#@!ing themselves anyway.

That is what the people that voted them in wanted the to do. The ACA is still an unpopular failure. But Democrats love it because it causes people to suffer.

Just because you want Obama's agenda to pass, there are more than half the people think that the country is going in the wrong direction and do not want his policies to succeed, that is just the way it is.

[Green Arrow]

I have no major disagreement with what you said there. I would add though that the constitution does not require the Senate to act if they have decided to withhold their consent.

I agree with that.

[Green Arrow]

If you look at this from a constitutional standpoint, which after all, is the only thing that really matters...

Article 1, section 5:

...Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

The Senate has determined that all nominees must pass through the judiciary committee. If they do not feel a candidate is qualified, they are under no obligation to send the nominee to the floor for a vote.

100% Constitutional.

And I have no issues with them sending Garland's nomination to the judiciary committee and then deciding he's not worth going any farther.

[Tahuyaman]

`

That is what the people that voted them in wanted the to do. The ACA is still an unpopular failure. But Democrats love it because it causes people to suffer.

Just because you want Obama's agenda to pass, there are more than half the people think that the country is going in the wrong direction and do not want his policies to succeed, that is just the way it is.

Its not so much that they want people to suffer, it's that they know some people always will and there's nothing one can do to eliminate all suffering, so they want the suffering to be spread equally to all.


Thats how liberals demonstrate their compassion.

[domer76]

`

That is what the people that voted them in wanted the to do. The ACA is still an unpopular failure. But Democrats love it because it causes people to suffer.

Just because you want Obama's agenda to pass, there are more than half the people think that the country is going in the wrong direction and do not want his policies to succeed, that is just the way it is.

Do you pay your plumber to come over and do nothing? I'll be your lawn guy at minimum wage if I don't have to do anything. I'll just send you the bill.

With people like you "thinking" things through, no wonder a buffoon like Trump can garner votes.

Paying your congressman to do nothing. What a laughable fucking comment!

[hanger4]

Do you pay your plumber to come over and do nothing? I'll be your lawn guy at minimum wage if I don't have to do anything. I'll just send you the bill.

With people like you "thinking" things through, no wonder a buffoon like Trump can garner votes.

Paying your congressman to do nothing. What a laughable fucking comment!
Sorry domer76 it"a not that they're doing nothing it"s just that they aren't doing what you want them to do.

Go ahead and stomp your feet and complain about things you apparently know nothing about.

[hanger4]

Do you pay your plumber to come over and do nothing? I'll be your lawn guy at minimum wage if I don't have to do anything. I'll just send you the bill.

With people like you "thinking" things through, no wonder a buffoon like Trump can garner votes.

Paying your congressman to do nothing. What a laughable fucking comment!

And BTW, Cigar via ThinkProgress thinks they're doing things just not what they want either.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/60271-Senate-Rep-Won%E2%80%99t-Hold-SCOTUS-Confirmation-Hearing-They-have-more-important-things

[domer76]

Sorry @domer76 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1355) it"a not that they're doing nothing it"s just that they aren't doing what you want them to do.

Go ahead and stomp your feet and complain about things you apparently know nothing about.

Conservatives took the Senate over a year ago and promised they would be making all these ge
reat changes. They've done shit in the last year.

Where do I send the bill for the electrical work I never did? I'll bill you next week for the carpet I never replaced.

The sad thing is you're fucking yourself and you don't even realize it.

lol

[Peter1469]

Conservatives took the Senate over a year ago and promised they would be making all these ge
reat changes. They've done shit in the last year.

Where do I send the bill for the electrical work I never did? I'll bill you next week for the carpet I never replaced.

The sad thing is you're fucking yourself and you don't even realize it.

lol

That is why Americans stopped listening to the Establishment.

:smiley:

[domer76]

That is why Americans stopped listening to the Establishment.

:smiley:

So you elected illiterate fucks to pay to do nothing. Well, you've gotten what you paid for. Now, you'll get a more liberal judge than has recently been nominated for the same reason. Sitting with your thumbs up your collective asses. You can't cut through that irony with a chain saw!

[Peter1469]

So you elected illiterate fucks to pay to do nothing. Well, you've gotten what you paid for. Now, you'll get a more liberal judge than has recently been nominated for the same reason. Sitting with your thumbs up your collective asses. You can't cut through that irony with a chain saw!

You sound completely unhinged.

No gun for you.

:smiley:

[hanger4]

Conservatives took the Senate over a year ago and promised they would be making all these ge
reat changes. They've done shit in the last year.

Where do I send the bill for the electrical work I never did? I'll bill you next week for the carpet I never replaced.

The sad thing is you're fucking yourself and you don't even realize it.

lol

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/active_leg_page.htm

Again, they're just not doing what you want them to do.

[domer76]

You sound completely unhinged.

No gun for you.

:smiley:

As I said, you've fucked yourselves and don't even realize it. Your post validates that.

[domer76]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/active_leg_page.htm

Again, they're just not doing what you want them to do.

Wow. They passed an appropriations bill? Will wonders never cease! The others are labelled "active". What's been completed? Nada

[Peter1469]

As I said, you've fucked yourselves and don't even realize it. Your post validates that.

Incorrect.

[Green Arrow]

Few things anger me more than people who think they know something about politics when, in reality, they know nothing.

[hanger4]

Wow. They passed an appropriations bill? Will wonders never cease! The others are labelled "active". What's been completed? Nada

If you'd take the time to look through the provided link all your whining would be answered.

Inform yourself.

[hanger4]

Few things anger me more than people who think they know something about politics when, in reality, they know nothing.

Indeed. One of the few things I remember my father saying ( he passed when I was 7), Never argue a point you know nothing about.