Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

So, I guess we would have a lot of circuit court splits in your hypothetical. Or maybe you could eventually vote McConnell and his party out before you run out of justices.

What if there was a terrorist attack on the Supreme Court when a Democrat was President and the Republicans controlled the Senate. Then no more Supreme Court?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

So, I guess we would have a lot of circuit court splits in your hypothetical. Or maybe you could eventually vote McConnell and his party out before you run out of justices.

But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

So, I guess we would have a lot of circuit court splits in your hypothetical. Or maybe you could eventually vote McConnell and his party out before you run out of justices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Was not uncommon that a seat sat empty for an extended period of time.

I think the longest was 841 days.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FT_16.02.23_supremeVacancies.png?w=640

The country would still function without a President as well. But according to the Constitution, we must have one.

Well in the hypothetical situation that Senate after Senate refuses to confirm judges to the point that SCOTUS disappears, the only remedy is via new Senators if the voters make it happen.

Letting money into politics has shown that the Constitution does not cover everything, and a party that will follow a dictator off a cliff creates problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

Well, DNC should never have rigged the nomination process to help Clinton. Bernie would have easily beaten Trump. Too bad. Elections have consequences.

Actually if the DNC hadn't rigged the nomination to help Clinton, Bernie would have had a lot more competition for the nomination and he'd be a nobody right now. He should be grateful to Clinton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Was not uncommon that a seat sat empty for an extended period of time.

I think the longest was 841 days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Was not uncommon that a seat sat empty for an extended period of time.

Obama was not the first President to have another party control the Senate and yet no Senate previously refused to consider the President’s nominee. It wasn’t the consequence of the election. It was the consequence of McConnell’s bad faith rejection of parliamentary order and his contempt for the institutions of the Senate and the Presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

I'm no fan of Mitch but that would take a long time. In any case, we have a huge Federal judiciary. The country would still function without the Supreme Court.

The country would still function without a President as well. But according to the Constitution, we must have one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

I'm no fan of Mitch but that would take a long time. In any case, we have a huge Federal judiciary. The country would still function without the Supreme Court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

Problem is, if that's our standard, it doesn't require any office holder to even come to work. The President could sit in Maralago for four years and that's okay if Mitch McConnell doesn't mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

Well we asked the wrong question. If we just stopped filling court seats forever because of politics, will we be able to keep the Constitution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.

But the Constitution outlines the duties of the Supreme Court. They can't be fulfilled if the court is empty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

With McConnell's rule the Supreme Court can sit empty indefinitely. Is that Constitutional? Is that politics?

Still waiting on an answer to this. No one?

Not PP but the above analysis seems logical. So, the answer to both questions would be yes. Elections have consequences.