Craze, the argument about the Senate not observing its constutional duties in a reasonable length of time thus resulting in a confirmation of the presidential nominee doesn't sound like saying the President is acting like a king to me.
Sounds more like the Senate Majority Leader is acting like a king.
Not much any more..... and I mostly listened anyway.
What's the Bream he's referring to? Shannon? I'd be on her team any time.
Sometimes tough love is the only way.....Nah, as Brad alluded to, that Supreme Court seat was a clear cut case of payback is a bitch.
If you don’t like the Supreme Court, blame Harry Reid - Roll Call
Opinion — Harry Reid put politics ahead of principle in 2013 and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.rollcall.com
And they invoked that nuclear option after holding up Bush judicial appointments for years. I have zero sympathy for the Democrats on that one. They changed long established norms and it blew up in their face exactly like they were warned it would.
Republicans own 19 states, if we get to 35 it’s game on I’d wager. Democrats nor Republicans aren’t looking for term limits but I sure as heck am
Disagree, they didn't get the consent to bring that Justice up for a vote.
The Democrats have been really good lately about changing things up when shit doesn't go their way and then expecting that everything is just going to go back to hunky dory normal when it suits them after they bulldozed norms. Garland showing up at the Supreme Court saying "I am a judge because the President said so" isn't constitutional. He wouldn't have had the consent of the Senate so he wouldn't be let in. Roberts has made some calls I don't agree with but I don't think he would be foolish enough to set that precedent.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don’t think you’re accurately capturing the sentiment of that quote given the context in which it was used.
I'm not interested in capturing the sentiment. Just my sentiment. lol
Remember, Doc was high on a mixture of alcohol and opium due to his tuberculosis.
It wasn't illegal.
Unethical, but not illegal.
McConnell and ethics are two words rarely used in a sentence in a positive light.
"Elections have consequences"...Barrack Obama, 2009
Think of it as a corollary of the Presentment Clause. In Article I, the Framers explicitly considered what should happen if the President simply chose not to act on a bill presented to him. That is, if he didn't sign, but also didn't veto it. And they decided that, except in cases where he couldn't return it to Congress because they had adjourned, his failure to act would be treated as consent.
Now, in Article II, they did not explicitly consider what should be done if the Senate behaved in the same way. I.e., they seem to have simply assumed that the Senate would vote on any Presidential appointment, rather than try to engage in a sort of legislative pocket veto. What some have argued in this thread is the idea that, absent explicit instructions in the Article, we should look to the common law understanding of consent, and in that context, it's reasonable to cast the Senate's refusal to act as de facto consent. Furthermore, the Framers did explicitly consider what to do when the Senate couldn't act: recess appointments.
Failure of imagination, I guess, on the part of the Framers, not to figure that the Senate might one day simply refuse to do its job, but when you look at the big picture, the idea that silence qualifies as consent isn't out of left field. That said, I don't think a President should try it, and I'm glad Obama decided against it.
Didn’t McConnell refuse to officially go on recess to avoid a recess appointment?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Not sure, but this is a decent write up of the history of what happened. Pretty fair for NPR:
Similar threads
