Active Users:983 Time:14/09/2025 03:15:36 PM
Amusing. You claim to believe in an Originalist/textualist reading of the Constitution, right ? fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 08/10/2020 12:53:16 PM

Here's what it says:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Where here does it say that advice and consent can only be given if the same political party controls the Presidency and the Senate? Spoiler, it doesn't, because the framers didn't envisage political parties.

Now, the Senate can not consent, of course. They can cast a vote and reject the President's treaty of nominee for any post. But they're duty bound to vote.



View original post
If the Democrats had control of the Senate, it wouldn't have been an issue. They didn't have control of the Senate. Do I think that it was "wrong" to not even have a vote? Sure. But politics isn't about being right or wrong. It's politics. It can be as back-stabby and brutal as anything else. It's not like Garland was the only judge that didn't even get a chance. He was just another example when the confirmation doesn't roll through due to a party differential.

~Jeordam


Yes, politics isn't about being right and wrong. Which is why politics can have political consequences. Like Democrats adding more judges to the Supreme Court. That would be the next political move in the game. You cannot call for the smelling salts at that, but not at Garland not getting a hearing. Which, by the way, was the first for a Supreme Court nominee.

And adding justices to the court is actually thoroughly legal. The Constitution literally gives that power to Congress. The Dems wouldn't even have to violate the constitution to play politics like the Republicans did. So learn to live with it, and quit the hypocricy.

Reply to message
Devastating news. Trump tests positive for virus that is soon to disappear... - 02/10/2020 09:39:58 AM 640 Views
Nice snark there.... - 02/10/2020 04:28:38 PM 276 Views
Thank you! - 03/10/2020 04:08:05 PM 257 Views
It may be delay her being confirmed, but it doesn't stop it. - 04/10/2020 12:52:26 PM 254 Views
Lame Duck is a separate issue - 05/10/2020 01:27:53 AM 257 Views
Essentially only one seat was "stolen" - 05/10/2020 01:08:11 PM 263 Views
I think that... - 05/10/2020 04:42:15 PM 266 Views
Even Ginsburg was no fan of how Roe v Wade was decided. - 05/10/2020 08:44:56 PM 246 Views
I wasn't necessarily a fan... - 05/10/2020 09:49:53 PM 273 Views
Now do Chevron - 05/10/2020 10:54:28 PM 191 Views
Why would the GOP... - 06/10/2020 12:58:08 PM 250 Views
Are we going to start going back further? Then lets talk about the Dems starting all this with Bork. - 06/10/2020 04:19:32 PM 235 Views
And? You think Bork deserved confirmation after what he did? - 07/10/2020 12:55:52 PM 248 Views
I think you're still part of a problem rather than working to be a part of the solution. - 07/10/2020 05:05:27 PM 224 Views
This would have more force if you actually had a solution in mind... - 07/10/2020 06:25:39 PM 252 Views
I'll jump in - 07/10/2020 07:39:02 PM 239 Views
Interesting - 07/10/2020 10:39:28 PM 231 Views
No advice needed.... - 07/10/2020 11:27:16 PM 220 Views
Amusing. You claim to believe in an Originalist/textualist reading of the Constitution, right ? - 08/10/2020 12:53:16 PM 235 Views
Aaaaand he's back. - 06/10/2020 11:37:02 PM 256 Views
People tried that - 07/10/2020 05:30:02 AM 261 Views
He wasn't even able to put his ego aside to use his getting sick to gain political points. - 07/10/2020 12:45:02 PM 257 Views
But I don't think that people are in the healthy fear range... - 07/10/2020 04:22:22 PM 244 Views
Why do you think that is? - 07/10/2020 06:28:54 PM 247 Views
Fear is by its very definition, not logical - 07/10/2020 07:37:54 PM 243 Views
Do you remember the infamous 'death panels' of the Obamacare debates? - 07/10/2020 08:15:03 PM 235 Views
I disagree - 07/10/2020 09:52:05 PM 250 Views

Reply to Message