It is Unconstitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on the President's SC nominee

You're right, my bad...Too much celebrating the Blaine Act last night

 

There is no "Thurmond Rule" -- and you know who agrees?

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

​

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule – that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

​

Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

“There have been lots of cases when judges have gone through after July [of an election year]."

[h=3]Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)[/h]

“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well(*) qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

​

 

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 9, clause 7) states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

This has been up till recently every year. The Democrats ignored that process for 4 years leading to all the continuing resolutions that kept having to be passed.

So if the Democrats can reinterpret the phrase "from time to time" to mean 4 years then they can't say one thing about the GOP deciding to take a year to decide on the next SCOTUS appointee.

 

Thanks! And I remember you did say this. The main controversy that I am looking at, is that of the Republicans' choice to totally ignore any nominee the President puts forward... there is a political rationale for this move (as opposed, say, to merely choosing to vote down any candidate the President forwards). Because political calculations are unavoidable, in putting nominees before a hostile Senate reviewing board, the President cannot nominate just anyone.

One could argue that in the interests of balance on the Court, Obama should appoint a liberal counterpart to Scalia; Scalia has been a long-serving Originalist Justice with a marked tendency to appeal to conservative sensibilities, so now it is time for a strong liberal voice on the Court (certainly there is none, now).

But the country has become so politically polarized, and conservatives have come to adopt such a proprietary feeling for "Scalia's" seat, that for Obama to appoint a "liberal lion" would be seen as unnecessarily provocative.

Obama, in spite of his demonization by conservatives as a divisive figure, has in fact been unusually open to compromise with them (if you ask me, it's been his willingness to compromise, which has branded him as weak by conservatives; and it's that impression of weakness, which has encouraged their hatred and makes any setback they have feel intolerable). So, both out of political practicality, and from his own governing style, Obama is likely to nominate a highly qualified "center-left" judge ("center-left," that is, so far as anyone is able to predict these things ahead of time), and use that nominee to put political pressure on the Republicans to act on the nomination.

Because for all practical purposes, getting the Senate to affirmatively respond to a nomination is (almost) the whole ballgame, politically. It's why the Republicans came so fast out of the gate, to peremptorily refuse to consider any nomination. Once there is a qualified candidate standing before the Senate (and the American people), the Senate has to have a better reason for rejecting that nominee, than sheer partisan politics. The Republicans might go for character-assassination against the nominee in the hearings - the way that, frankly, the Democrats did in the Bork and Thomas hearings - but it's doubtful that whoever Obama nominates will really be susceptible of that kind of attack. So, in the end the political pressure on the Senate to confirm, will be very large. The Republican Senate is desperate to avoid giving Obama such a huge win so late in his presidency, when there is possible light at the end of the tunnel for them, in sight. So they are opting for the ultimate in Senate obstruction, to prevent it from happening - And damn the torpedoes, if it's unconstitutional.

 

The Democrats don't have enough votes to confirm, they are 5 votes short. So, there's no need to refuse to vote, just vote down anyone who makes it to the voting stage. They simply need to drag out the committee and voting process till Obama's gone.

 

Precisely.

Harry Reid wouldn't even answer the phone if the situation were reversed and a Republican president sent a nominee to the Senate.

 

are we talking about the same constitution that Obama wipes his ass with? the same constitution every time Obama writes an executive order to ignore a law he violates?
that same constitution?
now you are all of a sudden concerned about it being followed that you will misrepresent what is actually says and puts words in it that aren't there

 

Thanks. I knew the Article you were going to refer to -- I also knew what you said "the Constitution requires the Senate to put forth a budget every year" was a false statement.

You're reciting a Palinism, or fellow dumbquacks who say such nonsense.

“The 1974 Budget Act, which laid out a timetable for the congressional budget process, isn’t strictly enforced — since the act, Congress has met its budget resolution deadline only six times. And Congress failed to complete action on budget resolutions for fiscal years 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007, as well as in recent years."

So in just shy of 40 years, the law which laid out a timeline, -- (not the Constitution) the budget resolution was met only SIX TIMES.

"Congress complies with that clause in Article I by appropriating funds each year, even if the Senate does not produce a ‘budget.’ ” He added, as we explained above, that the budget resolution “did not exist until the Budget Act of 1974.
...
Palin’s claim that the legislators violated the Constitution doesn’t square with the relatively short history of budget resolutions — and scholars doubt a court would agree with her."

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/palins-constitutional-stretch/

Oh well.

 

Consters loved Bush's "Signing statements" and Executive Orders. Get a grip.

 

I wasn't referring to what Palin said so I don't know why you bothered to bring that up. The fact that you had to link to an article about her shows that your argument has no legs to stand on.

The article clearly states that they must pass a law appropriating funds. This has been done traditionally every year. Since Democrats decided that they could change the traditional time frame form 1 year to 4 years then they have no right to complain if the GOP decides to change the SCOTUS nomination process from a couple of months to a year.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Budget_vrd.htm

As I have clearly shown they intrepreted that as meaning an annual budget just like the President. Need more proof? Let's look at the requirement for the President to have an annual budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act

If you recall your high school government class you would know that all three branches must agree to a budget.

Let me guess you are now going to assume that I am a Trump supporter and pull up some article about what Trump said about the budget.

 

This is only a pissing contest. Nothing will come from it. The constitution is clear. The Senate's obligation is to "advice and consent". All they need do is acknowledge the nominee and then say "no". That's it, it's over. The left can protest all they want. It is their only course of action. With a simple "no" by the Senate Majority Whip, the "advice" of the Senate has been fulfilled. The President's only other recourse is to name another nominee to which the Senate Majority Whip will once again reply with a "no". There is no "fighting like hell" required on this matter. The left should be allowed to protest all they want, that is their right. In the end, "no" is the end of it... elections have consequences.

 

There is no chance that Obama will select a Justice of the Scalia or Rhenquist sort of Justice.

Schumer told Bush that there is no way, with but 18 months left at the time that he would allow a Bush appointment to be confirmed should Bush appoint a Justice.

The Democrats blocked record numbers of Judges during Bush and deserve no mercy.

 

Why didn't you simply read Bush's signing statements?

They only stated he intended to uphold the constitution.

What is wrong with doing that?

Obama ought to give it a try.

 

I don't care if you weren't referring to her -- it was what was being passed around back then when she and - as I said, her "fellow dumbquacks who say such nonsense" repeated the line. That accounts for the CEC crowd.

I was merely providing a concise roundup of the facts in the general matter.

You're welcome.

If after reading the articles, and seeing in 40 years only six times did they put forth a budget res. on time, you insist on using the word "traditionally" - be my guest. You will, however, look pretty silly.

You were proven quite wrong when you said the Constitution requires an every year Senate resolution, and now you want to use this as some kind of comparison as it regards a SCOTUS appointee. Solly. No tiki.

I'm delighted though you think it's a good idea to hold up for a year and a half an appointee -- any one. This only helps Dems, and most circuit courts (where a tie vote will revert back to) are mostly in blue hands. Either way, Obama wins. Aw.

And there's this:

"Republicans have 24 senators up for reelection as compared to just 10 Democrats. Many of the Republicans up for reelection are running in Democrat–leaning states. Unless there is a landslide win for the Republican presidential candidate, providing his coattails to these candidates, Republicans could be expected to suffer a net loss."
Scalia's death will loom large in 2016 elections

Drink a long tall glass of that one, chucky.

 

Blue-Ribbon Task Force Finds President Bush's Signing Statements Undermine Separation of Powers
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S58123

"The American Bar Association issued a release today summarizing a report by a blue ribbon task force which concluded that President Bush's signing statements are in violation of and undermine the important doctrine of separation of powers. As it has been widely recorded, President Bush has undertaken a practice of issuing a signing statement at the time he signs congressional action into law. The task force said its recommendations ``are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers and, therefore, represent a call to the President and to all his successors to fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.''

Noting that the Constitution is silent about Presidential signing statements, the task force found that while several Presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the administration of President Bush. According to a press release issued today by the ABA, the task force report notes:



From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush . . . has produced more than 800.



The report found that President Bush's signing statements are ``ritualistic, mechanical, and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation.'' Even when ``[a] frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, . . . this, too, was subjected to a ritual signing statement, insisting on the President's authority to withhold information whenever he deemed necessary.''


This request raises serious concerns on the proceedings for separation of powers. The ABA states that its report goes on to say:



If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. "

 

Point me out the times that it was delayed more than 2 years....3 years or 4 years. What you are referring to are a matter of months.

They passed a law in 1921....almost 100 years ago that required the President to submit a budget. Since you need both Houses of Congress and the President to pass a budget that means that they congress must also do its due dilligence.

They established a Senate committee whose sole purpose was to come up with a budget every year back in the 1970s....40 years ago.

The constitution requires that "from time to time". That is a fact. It has been interpreted to mean annual budget otherwise why would they enact a Budget law that specifically tells the President he must produce a budget every year and why would they have a committee to come up with an annual budget if they thought otherwise? You sunk your own ship. You have no right to complain if the GOP decides to hold off on a nominee till after the election because there is even less evidence for a "traditional" timeline for SCOTUS appointments than there is for budget bills.

 

Stuff it dude. You're going nowhere with this.
[h=3]United States budget process[/h]
Now how about we get back on topic to what this thread is actually about?

Like how the GOP is going to get trounced if they refuse to even consider giving an appointee an up or down vote.

 

In theory that may be true. Problem arises when the Senate decides to either not vote on, or not approve a candidate before one is even presented.

 

if dems have the Senate, republicans will not be able to stop it

 

Grassley runs the committee that handles this, he has already said that he is awaiting Obama's judicial nominee. Now I know that Obama is very busy with his golf and of course his March Madness brackets. Which do you think Obama will complete first? Naming a nominee, or completing his March Madness brackets?

"This is a huge urgent priority, but hey, I have to do my March Madness brackets!"

 

We are pretty much in agreement. I kinda smiled when you said, "so now it is time for a strong liberal voice on the Court".

Well, if the Senate does hold hearings, they will not confirm a "strong liberal voice". In case you haven't noticed, rank and file conservatives are furious with congressional Republicans right now. If the Republican Senate confirmed a liberal judge .... aye yi yi! Politically, they can't do it, unless they're just suicidal.

 

did any of Bush's "Signing statements" and Executive Orders consisted of Ignoring a Law?

 

Umm, no.
” Notice that the Senate is not required to give its “advice and consent.” Rather, its consent is a prerequisite to enabling the president’s nominee to take up his or her office.

 

As if Bork and Alitto among others ever actually got a real vote based on merit. And lets not forget Schumer's statement concerning a potential Bush nomination in his last 18 months. To be sure there's plenty of hypocrisy and it happens every time we have a split government. You however are not required to join in that hypocrisy...

 

Thank you. I had no intention to.