• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

Deacfreak07 said:
a796d63fe9e40457da33f480b10ee0ad.jpg
Click to expand...

The constitution says nothing about the timing of this. The constitution says only that the president nominates and the senate confirms.
 
Junebug said:
The constitution says nothing about the timing of this. The constitution says only that the president nominates and the senate confirms.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty absurd argument. So you think it would be constitutionally permissible for the Senate to never confirm anyone until three more of them die and then they wouldn't have enough for a quorum leaving the Supreme Court completely powerless? That certainly wasn't the original intent of the Framers - I would think as a Scalia aficionado you wouldn't be in favor of that

It's a clear structural implication of the Constitution that the Senate has to confirm people to the Supreme Court, just like the President has to appoint them. Otherwise it would allow either branch to unilaterally abolish the Supreme Court
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
The people I'm seeing freak out the most might be the pro-gun folks. They seem convinced they're just a justice away from having their guns seized. They are going to be VERY motivated come the next election.
Click to expand...

They pro-gun nuts are always very motivated because their guns are all they've got.
 
MysteryMen said:
Also this has huge implications for cases this term (and next if Republicans really aren't going to fill a vacancy until next February). Cases that would have been 5-4 traditional lineup conservative wins will now be affirmed by an equally divided court, and with the vast majority of the circuits controlled by liberal justices thanks to seven years of Obama appointments, that probably favors liberal decisions.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you are talking about cases. You can have those cases for all I care.

Who the next justice is will determine the law. I'm more concerned about that.
 
I have no problem with the board or ordinary citizens offering what if scenarios. I disliked Scalia immensely, but if you are a politician, now is the time to let his family mourn. There is plenty of time for politics. I'm seriously going to consider voting for whoever does not mention this weekend whether or not Obama should be able to nominate.
 
Last edited:
Skydog Deac said:
I have no problem with the board or ordinary citizens offering what if scenarios. I disliked Scalia immensely, but if you are a politician, now is the time to let his family mourn. There is plenty of time for politics. I'm seriously going to consider voting for whoever does not mention this weekend whether or not Obama should be able to appoint.
Click to expand...

Then you will abstain from this election.
 
It'll be the first question at tonight's debate and they will say the Republicans must resist until after the election, when Hillary nominates Bill.
 
MysteryMen said:
This is a pretty absurd argument. So you think it would be constitutionally permissible for the Senate to never confirm anyone until three more of them die and then they wouldn't have enough for a quorum leaving the Supreme Court completely powerless? That certainly wasn't the original intent of the Framers - I would think as a Scalia aficionado you wouldn't be in favor of that

It's a clear structural implication of the Constitution that the Senate has to confirm people to the Supreme Court, just like the President has to appoint them. Otherwise it would allow either branch to unilaterally abolish the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

I don't think the constitution says the senate has to vote on (much less confirm) a sitting president's nominee within any particular time. If you have read some language in the constituion or in its ratification debates on this point I might have missed, feel free to share it.

It may or may not be politically wise for the republicans in the senate to delay, but the constitution most certainly does not require them to act with haste in this circumstance.
 
Junebug said:
I don't think the constitution says the senate has to vote on (much less confirm) a sitting president's nominee within any particular time. If you have read some language in the constituion or in its ratification debates on this point I might have missed, feel free to share it.

It may or may not be politically wise for the republicans in the senate to delay, but the constitution most certainly does not require them to act with haste in this circumstance.
Click to expand...

It's a structural implication of the Constitution that justices have to be appointed and confirmed. Otherwise either branch could unilaterally abolish the Supreme Court by just not appointing/confirming anyone and waiting for everyone to die/resign. I'm assuming you agree that would violate the Constitution? Maybe you don't, I don't know.

So if we're going to accept that premise, then there has to be a point where the delay in appointing/nominating someone becomes unconstitutional. I don't know how you draw that line other than using reasonableness, viewed in light of historical practice. Historical practice certainly seems to indicate that a vacancy of longer than one year would be orders of magnitude out of line with what has been done before.
 
Last edited:
A democratically controlled senate confirmed Kennedy in Reagan's last year.
 
Junebug said:
The constitution says nothing about the timing of this. The constitution says only that the president nominates and the senate confirms.
Click to expand...

it's implied that there are to be no unnecessary, manufactured, or partisan delays. otherwise, why not just wait a full 4-8 years if you don't like the sitting president? I would think the framers assumed that it would be a priority since it has to do with the fundamental way the govt. works. Pubs would be funny if all this weren't s deadly serious. First they refuse to participate in govt, then try to shut it down, now possibly prevent the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties due to....a technicality in the constitution that circumvents the entire document. You could do that logically, but talk about acting in bad faith and being irresponsible...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top