Ginsburg "chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee"

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have not seen anything in Article II that was unlawfully broken, which caused an appointment to be "stolen" from Obama.
That would be because the constitution is a document that is open to interpretation and is not explicitly detailed. If everyone agreed on what the constitution means or intends we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court. That is one reason why precedence becomes relevant.

Nevertheless, the issue here isn’t whether or not what the Senate is doing is legal, it’s whether or not its ethical. I think that the focus on legalities is a strawman.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I read the Constitution to say that the president nominates Judges to the supreme court who are appointed only if the Senate consents. I don't read it to say that the Senate must advise and consent, nor that the President must nominate anyone.

Remember, it says: "shall have Power ... shall appoint", it does not say "will/must appoint".

"“shall” is to be construed as “may,”" (law dictionary)

Wow, you are really cherry picking and glossing over what that law dictionary says. Let’s look at the whole paragraph.
“What is SHALL?

As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest.“

Are you claiming that whenever the word “shall” is used in the constitution it should be construed as “may?”

If so, let’s replace “”shall” with ”may” in some other places and see how it looks:

“All legislative Powers herein granted may be vested in a Congress of the United States, which may consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“The House of Representatives may choose their Speaker and other Officers; and may have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

“All Bills for raising Revenue may originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

When you read the constitution, it’s clear that the words “shall” and “may” are not interchangeable, except in cases where both would mean the same thing, such as “Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

When prohibiting something, “shall” and “may” end up meaning the same thing. But not when describing what is supposed to happen.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,919
17,316
✟1,429,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree. Ultimately we need to elect better people.

McConnel did nothing that he did not have the power to do. There is nothing in the constitution that required the 60 vote threshold, it was a senate rule that he was allowed to change per the constitution. He did nothing that was not done before here, even not voting on Garland. Why is breaking historic practice a bad thing? You know as well as I do that if the dems were in that situation they would have done the same thing and why not.

It's not a matter of "having the power to do it" nor the Constitution spelling out it.
The 60 vote requirement was in place to ensure the minority party has some influence on the nominee.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,919
17,316
✟1,429,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
..btw, I was also oppose to Harry Reid removing the 60 vote threshold for federal judicial nominees in 2013.

Both parties need to get back to evaluating USSC and Federal judges based on their judicial qualifications and experience....and stop applying ideological litmus test...
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not a matter of "having the power to do it" nor the Constitution spelling out it.
The 60 vote requirement was in place to ensure the minority party has some influence on the nominee.
Why should they have say?
 
Upvote 0

.Mikha'el.

7x13=28
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
May 22, 2004
33,109
6,441
39
British Columbia
✟1,007,433.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
She was right to do so. Obama was the duly elected President with the authority to make a nomination to fill the vacancy, and the Senate's cheap political games were appalling. I have a real fantasy that Trump's nominee doesn't get through and Biden choosing Judge Garland to fill it instead. I have no delusions it would ever happen though.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟487,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Those don't rise to the level for impeachment.

There's nothing in the law which prevents it, which is the rationalization I'm seeing for ramming through a USSC candidate now :

The republicans have done nothing that is not within their power legally to do.

If that's really the game that the Trump party wants to play, they should realize they are a minority and things can get a lot worse for them if they cause the majority to lose trust in our legal framework.

You want revenge on political opponents and use trumped up charges to get your way.

No, I'd prefer Donald's administration didn't use those tactics. But since they've normalized them - and no one in the Trump party seems to care - it is quite hypocritical to pretend to worry about it now.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟487,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Maybe we’ll find out who paid “I like beer”’s credit card debts?
I think the precedent for a federal official is, what, 12 investigations into the same thing to try and find something, anything to hold against them? I mean, that seems unreasonable to me but it is the standard set by Donald's party, who are we to question their theory of government?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟487,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
She was right to do so. Obama was the duly elected President with the authority to make a nomination to fill the vacancy, and the Senate's cheap political games were appalling. I have a real fantasy that Trump's nominee doesn't get through and Biden choosing Judge Garland to fill it instead. I have no delusions it would ever happen though.
No, Garland's too centrist. The court is now a political tool for the majority party. The only correct decision given that precedent is the most liberal 30-somthing judge Biden can find.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's nothing in the law which prevents it, which is the rationalization I'm seeing for ramming through a USSC candidate now :
If you think that is moral and want to back that then ok.

If that's really the game that the Trump party wants to play, they should realize they are a minority and things can get a lot worse for them if they cause the majority to lose trust in our legal framework.
Whatever. No one will lose trust in our legal framework for them to do what is their constitutional right to do. They would lose trust if a party unilaterally impeached supreme court judges for speeding tickets.

No, I'd prefer Donald's administration didn't use those tactics. But since they've normalized them - and no one in the Trump party seems to care - it is quite hypocritical to pretend to worry about it now.
Both parties use these tactics and no one has done anything illegal. Your allegiance to the dems is scary.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟487,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you think that is moral and want to back that then ok.

Seems like a double standard attempting to apply morality to my plan but legal nitpicking here :

Whatever. No one will lose trust in our legal framework for them to do what is their constitutional right to do.
Yep, I agree. Congress has the constitutional right to impeach federal judges for high crimes and misdemeanors. And the legal right to investigate them. So there's zero problems with my plan, just like there's zero problems with ramming a USSC justice through with less than 6 weeks to the election. No one can complain about either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Seems like a double standard attempting to apply morality to my plan but legal nitpicking here :
Ok


Yep, I agree. Congress has the constitutional right to impeach federal judges for high crimes and misdemeanors. And the legal right to investigate them. So there's zero problems with my plan, just like there's zero problems with ramming a USSC justice through with less than 6 weeks to the election. No one can complain about either.
Why didn't you quote my entire comment? I never said you could not impeach justices for anything at will if you want. I said that would undermine the trust of the justice system more than anything the republicans are doing or have done.

You have never told me what they are doing wrong constitutionally by nominating a justice 6 weeks before an election.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,925
14,018
Broken Arrow, OK
✟702,906.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
....placating an ever-shrinking base certainly isn't a winning strategy.

Ever Shrinking base? Have you seen the reception he has been having? I don't believe it is shrinking at all.

This was in Nevada -

trump_bnnr.jpg
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,925
14,018
Broken Arrow, OK
✟702,906.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A bare majority to confirm for a lifetime appoint is “okay” with you then?

It was OK with the Democrats when they changed it. Why wouldn't still be OK?
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,919
17,316
✟1,429,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ever Shrinking base? Have you seen the reception he has been having? I don't believe it is shrinking at all.

This was in Nevada -

....yes, I realize "shrinkage" is a sensitive topic -- from day one of his presidency.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums