Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[ShaneEnochs]

No, they don't. They need to stand up like men and keep Obama from turning this country into a even bigger progressive hellhole than it is already. You lefty's are always full of shit and huge hypocrites.

Well, okay.

As I asked before, why do conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution until it comes to something that they don't like? The Constitution most definitely says that the Senate needs to give advice and consent on whoever he nominates.

 

[Origanalist]

Well, okay.

As I asked before, why do conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution until it comes to something that they don't like? The Constitution most definitely says that the Senate needs to give advice and consent on whoever he nominates.

Two things. Do you expect Obama to listen to any advice? And are the Senators bound to give consent by the Constitution?

 

[Origanalist]

And why do progressives demand those opposing them play by rules they ignore?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Two things. Do you expect Obama to listen to any advice? And are the Senators bound to give consent by the Constitution?

Obama isn't required to listen to advice. As far as the Senate having to give it, I have no idea since it's not clearly outlined in the Constitution and is vague at best. I do know that if he really wanted to, Obama could appoint a justice as a recess appointment temporarily until the Senate actually decides to vote. I don't think he will, as that would look bad, but it would be an option.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The fact of the matter is, it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year.

Only because it has been "standard practice" for a justice not to die at this time.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Only because it has been "standard practice" for a justice not to die at this time.

It's a weird point to bring up anyway. Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 and confirmed in February 1988 (election year). Either way, I'm pretty sure a president is elected for a full four years, not just three. His duties continue to extend into his fourth year as far as I'm aware. Leaving the seat open for 340 days is ludicrous.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[65fastback2+2]

That's not how it stands. A per curing decision, which is what happens in a split decision, doesn't set precedence. It's no different than them kicking it back down to a lower court.

And how is this a problem? The court even with 9 members does this a bunch of the time. And it doesnt mean it cant come back to the SCOTUS at a later time.

 

[The Gold Standard]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

Good. I wish he could render the entire government crippled, but I will take what I can get.

 

[puppetmaster]

No, what the Senators are saying they'll do is delay, as in not even vote.

happens all the time. Just not on the good side just on your side. Reid did it all the time

 

[PCKY]

The Senate has a Republican majority. Their job is to question the appointment on their decisions in cases prior. They would obviously not consent a justice that has that kind of judicial background.

So what they're going to do is leave the Judiciary crippled for an entire year in the hopes that somehow all of the polls are wrong and a Republican beats Hillary/Bernie. What if they don't? Are they just going to not allow a branch of government to work indefinitely?

It's childish and political. They need to do their job. I'm not saying they need to pass whoever Obama nominates, but they need to at least review the nominee and then vote. Otherwise, it's obstruction for obstructions sake.

4-4 decisions go back to the lower courts. Majority decisions stand. Not really crippling. The Dems insisted on this in 1960 due to some Ike appointments and got their way. So now the shoe is on the other foot.
So I think Paul is right. SCOTUS blog is indicating that Obama will appoint Loretta Lynch, the queen of civil asset forfeiture. That is pretty crippling.
And in regards to obstruction, the Senate's job is to advise and consent, not advise and agree.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

4-4 decisions go back to the lower courts. Majority decisions stand. Not really crippling.

Which makes it as if the Court never heard the decision in the first place. If you make it to the supreme court, it would suck pretty badly to have your case dropped back down because Republicans refuse to even consider a nominee.

So I think Paul is right. SCOTUS blog is indicating that Obama will appoint Loretta Lynch, the queen of civil asset forfeiture. That is pretty crippling.
And in regards to obstruction, the Senate's job is to advise and consent, not advise and agree.

Tom Goldstein is out of his mind. There's no way that Obama puts Lynch up for the Supreme Court. It's either going to be Sri Srinivasan or Jacqueline Nguyen.

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

The Senate has a Republican majority. Their job is to question the appointment on their decisions in cases prior. They would obviously not consent a justice that has that kind of judicial background.

So what they're going to do is leave the Judiciary crippled for an entire year in the hopes that somehow all of the polls are wrong and a Republican beats Hillary/Bernie. What if they don't? Are they just going to not allow a branch of government to work indefinitely?

It's childish and political. They need to do their job. I'm not saying they need to pass whoever Obama nominates, but they need to at least review the nominee and then vote. Otherwise, it's obstruction for obstructions sake.

Obama has proven that his judicial nominees have no respect for the law or constitution and it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow him to confirm a judge to the SCOTUS. The court still functions and if there is a tie then the lower court ruling stands. Allowing a vote reduces the threshold for approval to majority which it seems like you want. I remember the day when Paul supporters wanted to support the Constitution. Obama has no problem gutting the law and putting his puppets in place to vote his way.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Obama has proven that his judicial nominees have no respect for the law or constitution and it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow him to confirm a judge to the SCOTUS. The court still functions and if there is a tie then the lower court ruling stands. Allowing a vote reduces the threshold for approval to majority which it seems like you want. I remember the day when Paul supporters wanted to support the Constitution. Obama has no problem gutting the law and putting his puppets in place to vote his way.

I remember when Paul supporters supported the Constitution as well, like that pesky article II that says that the president needs to nominate a justice and the Senate needs to vote on it.

 

[PCKY]

I remember when Paul supporters supported the Constitution as well, like that pesky article II that says that the president needs to nominate a justice and the Senate needs to vote on it.

And Paul said he'd vote on it...but set a very high bar for approval. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[puppetmaster]

And I agree with you. It absolutely is. That being said, a straight up or down vote needs to be held on whoever he nominates. The Republicans need to be the "bigger man" on this issue instead of doing exactly what they criticized him for doing.

yes and we need to compromise....and reach across the isle....fuck that, this is more important than being the bigger man. This is about our rights. We need to stop playing games nice and kick some liberal ass. People like you want compromise when it is to your advantage but always fail to do the same. But like a true liberal come back later and say you were wrong when you did and we should not do it either. I will tell you right now that the time and place for war time tactics is now. This is a war to save the US and we are losing. There are no rules any longer as proven again and again by the left and your ilk.

 

[PCKY]

Obama has proven that his judicial nominees have no respect for the law or constitution and it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow him to confirm a judge to the SCOTUS. The court still functions and if there is a tie then the lower court ruling stands. Allowing a vote reduces the threshold for approval to majority which it seems like you want. I remember the day when Paul supporters wanted to support the Constitution. Obama has no problem gutting the law and putting his puppets in place to vote his way.

I would agree. That is why he has put so much effort into stacking the lower courts with liberal judges. If the Constitution is to survive, we will need another originalist on the court. Obama will never nominate one.

 

[PCKY]

Which makes it as if the Court never heard the decision in the first place. If you make it to the supreme court, it would suck pretty badly to have your case dropped back down because Republicans refuse to even consider a nominee.



Tom Goldstein is out of his mind. There's no way that Obama puts Lynch up for the Supreme Court. It's either going to be Sri Srinivasan or Jacqueline Nguyen.

Goldstein wasn't the only one. The idea was that she is a black female (racist Republicans blocking wouldn't fly in an election year) and that she was vetted for Attorney General. Easy peasy for the Administration.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

yes and we need to compromise....and reach across the isle....fuck that, this is more important than being the bigger man. This is about our rights. We need to stop playing games nice and kick some liberal ass. People like you want compromise when it is to your advantage but always fail to do the same. But like a true liberal come back later and say you were wrong when you did and we should not do it either. I will tell you right now that the time and place for war time tactics is now. This is a war to save the US and we are losing. There are no rules any longer as proven again and again by the left and your ilk.

It's always a crisis isn't it? We are always under immediate threat of death camps and martial law and agenda 21 and soldiers walking down our streets shooting everyone who steps out of line and a full scale fascist regime taking over the entire planet is always just around the corner. Along with some violent revolution that people have spent the past fifty years waiting for. I'm sure it'll come some day. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But sometime soon, right?

You guys read way too much dystopian fiction. Libertarian fear of government is no different than Republican fear of brown people hiding in every American town ready to blow themselves up. I can't even imagine how much stress you guys must be under to be in a constant state of fear like that.

 

[misterx]

I remember when Paul supporters supported the Constitution as well, like that pesky article II that says that the president needs to nominate a justice and the Senate needs to vote on it.

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.

Where exactly does it state that the Senate has to approve the President's nominee or even have an up or down vote? I'm sorry, but you're sounding more and more like a left-wing troll.