Do you agree with Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

BrianJK said:
You're thinking of some of the main issues many Republicans place high importance on. I disagree that ask voters will place little importance in congressional temper tantrums like this.

No, those issues are important to the public and have been for a long time. The data and evidence supports this as true.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
Denying them is not ignoring them. It is part of their duties as representatives of the people. The topic stated refusing to vote, which is in my book ignoring him.

There is no constitutional mandate of a vote.

jayem · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
After all, the "games" has been in those areas that immediately impact peoples' lives and Congress doing nothing. A Court temporarily with 8, and still functioning, just isn't as paramount.

But a 4-4 tie affirms the lower court's decision. And it doesn't set a precedent. So there's a risk that some issues may not be properly settled.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Feb 13, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
Why not? Presidential budgets are routinely ignored....and remember Congress is a co-equal branch of government, not subservient to the Executive.

The budget is not ignored. It is debaited, rearranged and given back to him with what has been changed. He can take it or veto it, in which case the congress can overide his veto.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

jayem said:
But a 4-4 tie affirms the lower court's decision. And it doesn't set a precedent. So there's a risk that some issues may not be properly settled.

They can reset the case for argument.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
There is no constitutional mandate of a vote.

There is a moral duty to do the peoples work. If government is not here to serve the people then it needs to be abolished and send all those drama queens to Mc Donald's to flip hamburgers. Let's see how they like living off the minimum wage.

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Doubtful. Refusing to appoint a Justice isn't going to result in a view of obstructionism. The public understands the Court issues decisions based on, in part, the ideological inclinations of the justices. The public, astute to this fact, has equally approved or repudiated appointments based on the perception of the candidate as liberal or conservative.

After all, it was Democrats who precluded Bork's appointment, for political reasons. Only one Democrat voted to appoint Alito. It would be an interesting criticism by Democrats to cry foul under these circumstances.

Back in the 1930's FDR wanted to add several more SCJ's, mostly as a threat because the court kept overturning his programs. Even SCOTUS is political.

BrianJK · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
No, those issues are important to the public and have been for a long time. The data and evidence supports this as true.

And elected officials doing their Constitutional duty is not? Where are those statistics?

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

BrianJK said:
And elected officials doing their Constitutional duty is not? Where are those statistics?

Cite the constitutional provision or language mandating the Senate to vote. Let me save you some time, the provision is non-existent. T

Tiny Bible · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
They can reset the case for argument.

That has nothing to do with her observation about the court decision arriving at a tie between the eight justices.
The court can reset oral arguments and that means the case hasn't been heard much less decided. And unless the justices are psychic they don't know if their decision would arrive at a tie on any one case so resetting the arguments has nothing to do with the issue of a tie.

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
The budget is not ignored. It is debaited, rearranged and given back to him with what has been changed. He can take it or veto it, in which case the congress can overide his veto.

Congress is not even giving the Executive office a chance to defend their budget this year.....and how many times have we heard that a POTUS budget is DOA?

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

BrianJK said:
Sure they have. But Congress had never blocked an appointment for near a year out of stubbornness before.

What difference does it make if it is out of stubborness or inability to agree on someone? The country has and will survive.....

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
There is a moral duty to do the peoples work. If government is not here to serve the people then it needs to be abolished and send all those drama queens to Mc Donald's to flip hamburgers. Let's see how they like living off the minimum wage.

Yeah? Where can I read and learn about this "moral" duty? Is this "moral duty" located next to the renown moral precepts of "thou shall not murder" and "thou shall not steal?"

Second, the people are not necessarily to receive what they ask for of their government and representatives are not mere robots of the people. Neither is the Senate, choosing not to vote, necessarily inconsistent with "serve the people."

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

Arcangl86 said:
I really don't get the Republican argument about the American people having a say in the new Justice. They voted for President Obama and their respective senators.

Exactly....Dem president, Very Repub congress. much divided....

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

Tiny Bible said:
That has nothing to do with her observation about the court decision arriving at a tie between the eight justices.
The court can reset oral arguments and that means the case hasn't been heard much less decided. And unless the justices are psychic they don't know if their decision would arrive at a tie on any one case so resetting the arguments has nothing to do with the issue of a tie.

You misunderstand. In the event of a tie, they can reset for argument. They've done this before.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Feb 13, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
Congress is not even giving the Executive office a chance to defend their budget this year.....and how many times have we heard that a POTUS budget is DOA?

Being dead means that it will be altered and sent back. This type of language is sabre rattling for the consumption of their constituents.

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

Tiny Bible said:
That has nothing to do with her observation about the court decision arriving at a tie between the eight justices.
The court can reset oral arguments and that means the case hasn't been heard much less decided. And unless the justices are psychic they don't know if their decision would arrive at a tie on any one case so resetting the arguments has nothing to do with the issue of a tie.

I believe it means the lower courts decision stands but it can be reheard by SCOTUS.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Yeah? Where can I read and learn about this "moral" duty? Is this "moral duty" located next to the renown moral precepts of "thou shall not murder" and "thou shall not steal?"

Second, the people are not necessarily to receive what they ask for of their government and representatives are not mere robots of the people. Neither is the Senate, choosing not to vote, necessarily inconsistent with "serve the people."

They are there for a reason and that is not to take up space. If you owned a business and had a worker who simply refused to do the job you fired him for, would you not get rid of him?

Why would you allow it in a public figure who can set their own salary. I don't get partisans at all. they are beyond hypocritical and many time proud of the fact.

civilwarbuff · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
Being dead means that it will be altered and sent back

Of course it will be sent back, it is constituitionally mandated that POTUS sign the budget but that does not mean that Congress has to give the Executive branch the opportunity to defend it or that the budget has to look like the one that was sent to them.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
They are there for a reason and that is not to take up space. If you owned a business and had a worker who simply refused to do the job you fired him for, would you not get rid of him?

Why would you allow it in a public figure who can set their own salary. I don't get partisans at all. they are beyond hypocritical and many time proud of the fact.

We are not talking about a business but the Senate, the U.S. Constitution, and approval process of appointments by the President. The two not parallel here.

We are discussing a very narrow issue here. We are not discussing overall job performance.

Do you agree with Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

Do you support the Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee

Yes

No

Depends on who Obama nominates

Domer

Domer

Naturalist

in accordance with Christ

Domer

in accordance with Christ

Well-Known Member

Abdul Masih

Domer

All Lives Matter. Pray BLM Learn That.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Well-Known Member

Domer

in accordance with Christ

Well-Known Member

in accordance with Christ

Well-Known Member

Domer

Similar threads