So, Republicans prove they don't care about the Constitution.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. PracticalMac, Feb 14, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2016

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Title should be:
    Republicans prove they don't care about Constitution."
    (don't know how to fix)


    With the unfortunate sudden death of Scalia, the wheels to choose a replacement has started.

    It is a very simple affair:
    The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.

    Except rather then let the process run its course, the "Republicans" have announced plans to impede and block any and all Obama nominations until the next president.

    It will be 11 months before the next president is sworn in, and probably another month before one is accepted by the Senate (if all goes well).
    A FULL year of only 8 justices.

    And what if Hillary wins?
    "Republicans" continue to block?
    (Or if the tables where turned?)

    Granted there is no time table on selecting justices, or how many justices USSC should have, but this action damages the checks-balances of the Constitution. It make Article III a football to be fought over by Article I and II, undermining a fundamental aspect of what makes the Constitution work.
    This impediment to functioning of Article III is exceedingly dangerous to the function of the USGov.


    I can understand delaying the selection in the period after the next PotUS is elected, but this was just how it happens. Everyone wants to win the mega lottery, but only 1 in a half a billion are lucky enough to.
    Obama found himself in a mixed opportunity to choose 1 more justice with huge ramification with possible detriment to "Republicans".

    That is how fate sometimes happens, no one can choose, deal with it.


    PS: for the Religious Conservative readers:
    GOD called a honorable justice to his kingdom for his service.
    GOD ordained that Obama can install another justice of his choosing.
    IF you question God's actions, burn your Christian membership card.

    (EDIT: simply highlighted a statement I made some people missed)
     
  2. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #2
    It's absolutely pathetic for the Senate to say they will forgo their duties outlined in the Constitution and not even consider any of President Obama's nominees. They are now acting as a rogue entity and it proves the party is completely unhinged.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    It wAs a democrat who signed indefinite detention w/o trial into law.

    Maybe your title should read :. "Republicans, the party of not while Obama is in power";)
     
  4. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    Where in the constitution is there a timeline or obligation to accept any SCOTUS appointee?

    Under the Constitution, the Senate has the authority to consent to or reject appointees. That's all there is to it, and in not doing it in a timeframe you or Obama regard as acceptable in no way represents going outside the constitution.
     
  5. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #5
    I think it will become pretty apparent when they are simply acting as petulant children, rejecting any and all appointees.

    What's the longest time that the Supreme Court has gone without filling a seat. I think I read it was something like 4 months (I don't have a source...just what I read somewhere and not trying to claim it as fact)? If this goes on for 12 months, that says something beyond "you just don.t find it acceptable".
     
  6. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #6
    Also, the court is also perfectly capable of handling its duties with one less Justice. It's been as low as 6 and as high as 10 in fact. Minus one should not hurt the constitution in any way, and the court should in fact be business as usual.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 14, 2016 ---
    Call it what you like, but you can't call it unconstitutional.
     
  7. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Deadlock is not a functioning court. It doesn't matter what side is in charge, the president has a legal right to nominate who he wants. Congress has a right to confirm. To just say nope, we are not going to do our job is wrong. This is why people distain Washington. They are actually admitting they are not going to get anything done. The whole system is a joke at this point. On a national level I just lost respect for the Republicans. And if the tables were reversed I would say the same thing. Mitch McConnel is a little bitch.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Wrong. Yes. But Unconstitutional?
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    Having a deadlocked Supreme Court for up to 18 months, sure. This means the constitution would grind to a halt. Nothing could be challenged.
     
  10. Technarchy, Feb 14, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016

    Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    Is it unconstitutional? Nope. This thread makes no sense.

    And if you don't like your representation there is a constitutional method for dealing with that as well. It's called an election.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    It's mind-boggling that they could say, in almost so many words, that they are going to hold up everything until they get the president they want.

    But then, Congress has pretty much been doing that since Obama's first mid-term. I swear, if it was possible to put both chambers up for impeachment proceedings for dereliction of duty, I'd be in favor of it.

    The very real danger for Republicans, as I think vrDrew mentioned elsewhere, is that this will make a great weapon for Democrats to wield in an election year. There's no way any reasonable person will think it's a good idea for Republicans to stymie all three branches of government.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    SCOTUS only challenges what they wish and when they feel like it, pretty worthless at times
    When is SCOTUS going to challenge Obamas indefinite detention w/o trial?
    How about the patriot act?
    NSA warrantless spying?
     
  13. Technarchy, Feb 14, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016

    Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    Dear lord...

    A split decision upholds the ruling of the lower court. In the event of a tie, the court issues what's known as a per curiam decision.

    The opinion in such a decision is issued under the court's name, as opposed to consisting of a majority and a minority opinion. Justices, however, may attach dissenting opinions to the per curiam

    When a 4-4 deadlock does occur, the case is not deemed to have set any sort of precedent. Tradition holds that the court's per curiam opinion in such ties is usually consisting of no more than a single sentence: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    Ya that's the main reason the Republicans don't want to move on a appointment.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    I think it depends on what is being challenged.
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    In this instance, a deadlocked court won't be a common outcome. With Scalia's seat vacated, that puts 3 remaining conservatives judges against the 4 liberals. The only way we'll see a 4 vs 4 split would be if the switch voter decides to side with the conservatives on an issue, which only happens every so often.
     
  18. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #18
    Liberals have nothing to worry about. McConnell is just blowing smoke up the Republicans asses.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    Nothing apparently.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    There isn't anything particularly unConstitutional about the Republicans' stated intention to refuse to allow hearings on a prospective Obama Supreme Court Justice nominee. Not holding hearings, or even filibustering a nomination might go against the spirit of the Constitution's wording. But there are no obvious legal remedies or penalties for failing to act on a nomination.

    The issue is that the Republicans are setting themselves up for a very clear political problem.

    In very simple terms; rigid opposition and obstructionism might play very well on talk radio and Fox News. But it plays to decidedly less approving audiences among citizens in general, and voters in particular. If the prospect of President Cruz or Trump doesn't get moderate Americans off the couch come November, the specter of two or three months of a carefully orchestrated PR campaign, with Ted Cruz' or Mitch McConnell's bluster as its centerpiece - ought to do the trick. And don't discount the chances of that happening. There might very well be 20% of the population who think partisan gridlock and obstruction is just peachy. But there is 80% of the population thats frankly sick of it.

    The thing Conservatives seem not to understand about poker: Your opponent doesn't need to have all the cards to win. He just needs to have better ones than you do.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
  22. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #22
    I won't get too excited unless the Republicans try to change the size of the court. Otherwise Obama just needs to find someone acceptable enough to pass.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Delaying appointments is changing the size of the court.
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
  25. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #25
    Changing the size of the court is changing the court and I think it is something congress has the power to do.
     

Share This Page