Reply to Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.[/quote]
Correct.  Apologies for my typo.  I meant "after Obama's third year."[/quote]

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance.  And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.[/quote]

Yes, yes, he was re-elected in 2012.  And two thirds of this Senate were elected in 2012 [i]and 2014[/i] and 100% of the House was elected [i]in 2014[/i], so there you go.  Check, meet balance.
[/quote]

That's irrelevant.  The only person elected who has the constitutional responsibility to nominate SCOTUS justices is the President.  There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that Presidents aren't really supposed to carry out their Constitutional responsibility for 25% of any 4 year term (how would this play out if it were the fourth year of his first term, I wonder?).  Likewise, the members of the Senate elected in both 2012 and 2014 have the Constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent" on the nominees, which has historically been done through hearings and votes.  No one is saying they have an obligation to approve the President's nominee, but refusing to even give a hearing to a nominee for what would amount to 1/6 of each of their terms is shirking their responsibility.

I know it seems like we're really just electing parties sometimes, but the current primary season should make it clear that we're actually electing individual people.  Like it or not, the current President was elected to the position that nominates appointees, not a group of Senators selected by a who have power disproportionate to the population they represent.[/quote]

Oh, I quite agree that Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation to nominate a Justice.  The Constitution says that the president "shall nominate", so he was required to do so ("shall" meaning mandatory).  Well done!  On the other hand, the Senate has no obligation to "advi[s]e and consent", there is no "shall" for them; the Senate has the right (not the obligation) to do so.  This is by design.

By the same token, PP, you also have many rights under the Constitution.  For example, you are not required to bear arms, but you may do so if you so choose.

Democratic talking points about the Senate "not doing its job" is just political pressure to impress the typical Democratic low-information voter, and is irresponsible.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics