Tonight the R's are in fine form.....

[Tonik]

 

 

.....with their hypocrisy, ranting about how the Dem's should not block the nomination.

 

 

[Tonik]

And calm down libs. The balance is the same as the last 8 years.  No important abortion restrictions were upheld, the court shot them all down.  And gay marriage was upheld. And I will remind you, 6 of the 7 justices that voted in favor of Roe in Roe v Wade were appointed by Republicans.

[motocat12]

2 hours ago, Tonik said:

 

 

.....with their hypocrisy, ranting about how the Dem's should not block the nomination. In the last year of a president's term

 

 

FTFY

[Tonik]

2 hours ago, motocat12 said:

FTFY

Where in the hell does the the Constitution say anything about not appointing in the last year? I thought R's were strict Constitutionalists.

[motocat12]

5 hours ago, Tonik said:

Where in the hell does the the Constitution say anything about not appointing in the last year? I thought R's were strict Constitutionalists.

It doesn't say anything about requiring a vote in any year. but to be hypocritical in this term but not before...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087#!

 

 Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.

To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.

Of course, Senator Schumer knows as well as anyone that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to give judicial nominations an up-or-down vote. From the very outset of George W. Bush's presidency, Schumer was ready to block a vote on any of his Supreme Court nominations. In fact, Schumer announced in mid-2007—with a year and a half left in Bush's presidency—that he would block any further nominations Bush might make to the Court. (He added that the failure of his effort to filibuster the Alito nomination, barely a year into Bush's second term, one of his "greatest failings and regrets.")

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by motocat12

[Tonik]

54 minutes ago, motocat12 said:

It doesn't say anything about requiring a vote in any year. but to be hypocritical in this term but not before...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087#!

 

 Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.

To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.

Of course, Senator Schumer knows as well as anyone that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to give judicial nominations an up-or-down vote. From the very outset of George W. Bush's presidency, Schumer was ready to block a vote on any of his Supreme Court nominations. In fact, Schumer announced in mid-2007—with a year and a half left in Bush's presidency—that he would block any further nominations Bush might make to the Court. (He added that the failure of his effort to filibuster the Alito nomination, barely a year into Bush's second term, one of his "greatest failings and regrets.")

 

 

Ok, I read all that.  Still don't see where in the Constitution it says Presidents can't appoint a Justice in their last year.

[Qman]

On 2/1/2017 at 7:09 AM, motocat12 said:

It doesn't say anything about requiring a vote in any year. but to be hypocritical in this term but not before...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087#!

 

 Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.

To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.

Of course, Senator Schumer knows as well as anyone that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to give judicial nominations an up-or-down vote. From the very outset of George W. Bush's presidency, Schumer was ready to block a vote on any of his Supreme Court nominations. In fact, Schumer announced in mid-2007—with a year and a half left in Bush's presidency—that he would block any further nominations Bush might make to the Court. (He added that the failure of his effort to filibuster the Alito nomination, barely a year into Bush's second term, one of his "greatest failings and regrets.")

 

It ALSO doesnt say anything about requiring 9 SCOTUS members...or any particular number of SCOTUS justices.