• 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

The Republican Congress has done nothing but engage in non-stop obstruction since the day Obama took office. What makes anyone think they would change course now?
 
I just want to make the Supreme Court great again. Is that too much to ask?
 
MysteryMen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even if I grant that your hypo would violate the constitution, delaying for a year on Scalia's replacement would not implicate the functionality of the SCOTUS. For crying out loud, there not even anything in the constituion that says the SCOTUS has to have 9 (or even an odd number of) justices.
 
so what's ur plan of action Junebug, and what do you think the ultimate consequences would be? god ur making some dumb posts, man.
 
Stupid founding fathers assumed Republicans would behave like adults.
 
Junebug just is and has always been transparently partisan to everyone but himself.
 
Junebug said:
Even if I grant that your hypo would violate the constitution, delaying for a year on Scalia's replacement would not implicate the functionality of the SCOTUS. For crying out loud, there not even anything in the constituion that says the SCOTUS has to have 9 (or even an odd number of) justices.
Click to expand...

By statute (also controlled by Congress), the Supreme Court needs six justices for a quorum. So your argument is basically they can wait as long as they want, but if three more die then it magically becomes unconstitutional because Congress is stopping the court from acting?

It's also pretty ridiculous to have the Senate majority leader saying that they won't confirm anyone without even having a nominee in front of them....clear partisanism regarding a branch that is not supposed to be partisan. Nino was a 98-0 confirmation vote in case anyone has forgotten
 
i mean the constitution doesn't say congress can make money so our USD is both worthless and unconstitutional, right June? Also, the constitution doesn't say i can't use it as toilet paper to wipe my ass, then set it on fire and flush it down the toilet, so i guess that's actually allowed too.
 
Last edited:
dmcheatw said:
i mean the constitution doesn't say congress can make money so hate to break it to you all but your USD is worthless. Also, the constitution doesn't say i can't use it as toilet paper to wipe my ass, then set it on fire and flush it down a western-style toilet into a septic tank, so i guess that's actually allowed too.
Click to expand...

Ummm this is a terrible example....

"The Congress shall have power to...coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

Article I, Section 8
 
Skydog Deac said:
Kasich let me down.
Click to expand...

He was just joining the crowd in pandering. That's what all of these debates come down to...on both sides. Did anyone think that one of these six candidates would give an answer that Republicans in South Carolina didn't want to hear? And Hillary was no better the other night with her transparent pandering to the black voters in South Carolina. What she was doing was so obvious that it should have been an insult to black voters that she was so patronizing & condescending to them.

These debates are just entertainment theater, more than anything else. Bernie has been the only one out of the whole bunch who was willing to say something (regarding taxes) even though he knew there were people who would not like it....but nobody else has, except possibly Rand Paul...and look where it got him. Kasich tried here, but the heat of the campaign (and his ambition) finally won out.
 
bad example or not i'm sure you see my intention MM.
 
It simply is not constitutionally required that the senate vote on Obama's forthcoming nominee before January 20, 2017, and the question isn't close (nor, likely, is it justiciable, but that's beside the point). Whether it's politically wise or not, I will not offer an opinion on.
 
Junebug said:
It simply is not constitutionally required that the senate vote on Obama's forthcoming nominee before January 20, 2017, and the question isn't close (nor, likely, is it justiciable, but that's beside the point). Whether it's politically wise or not, I will not offer an opinion on.
Click to expand...

I 100% disagree. If three more justices die before then, it could easily be seen as constitutionally mandated. I have to think it would be non-justiciable though, so not sure how it would get resolved
 
Trump has gigantic balls. I don't know how that played with Republicans but I thought he straight up crushed Jeb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top