quote:

HOW HARRY REID IS DESTROYING THE SENATE
We often hear that Washington is “broken,” that Congress is “gridlocked,” and so on. While such complaints are usually imprecise and sometimes misguided, the sense that Congress is not functioning as intended is correct. Yesterday Senator Jeff Sessions delivered an important speech in which he decried the decline of the Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid. The extent to which the Senate’s traditions have been undermined to the detriment of all Americans is not generally appreciated, but the issue is a vital one. Senator Sessions said:

The Senate is where the great issues of our time are supposed to be examined, reviewed, and discussed before the whole nation. Yet, in the last few years, we have witnessed the dramatic erosion of Senators’ rights and the dismantling of the open legislative process.

We fund the government through massive omnibus bills that no one has had the time to read or analyze. Senators are stripped of their right to offer amendments. Bills are rushed through under threat of panic, crisis, or shutdown. Secret deals rule the day, and millions of Americans are essentially robbed of their ability to participate in the legislative process.

Under the tenure of Majority Leader Reid, the Senate is rapidly losing its historic role as a great deliberative body. If this continues, America will have lost something very precious.

One of the tactics by which Majority Leader Reid has suppressed Senators’ rights and blocked open debate has been a technique called “filling the tree.” What this means, basically, is that when a bill comes to the floor, the Leader will use his right of first recognition to fill all of the available amendment slots on a bill and block any other Senator from offering amendments. One man stands in the way of his 99 colleagues. But, not alone really. His power exists only as long as his majority concurs and supports his actions. This prevents the body from working its will, it prevents legislation from being improved, and it prevents Senators from being held accountable by their votes on the great issues of the day. That is, of course, why it’s done.

Our Majority Leader has used this tactic—filling the tree—80 times. To put this in perspective, the six previous Majority Leaders filled the tree 49 times—combined. Senator Reid has filled the tree on 30 more occasions than all of the six previous Majority Leaders did cumulatively over their tenures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Unfortunately for you, you're wrong.

Were it a constitutional requirement for the Senate to act at the President's beck and call, the Justice department would be seeking a writ of mandamus faster than you can say, "well shit.".

However, since its not, and this is super well established... your opinion, frankly, is wrong.

First of all, it wasn't supposed to work like that. It's supposed to be a government (all 3 branches) that may have its differences, but always put country over politics. There is supposed to be a generally known need to fill a vacancy, which will motivate the President and the Senate to act.

The President nominates, and (with advice and consent of the Senate) appoints someone to fill the vacancy. That is precisely the way it is worded in the Constitution (not my opinion. Just READ it!!!!) The vacancy itself is supposed to motivate our government to act. (As opposed to the Senate acting at the President's beck and call)

The premise of your argument is heavily flawed.

Secondly, as bounty so vigorously and irrelevantly pointed out, this kind of thing (unconstitutional behavior) happens all the time. No writ of mandamus.

So you are wrong on that point as well.


0 for 2 :(

No mate, your opinion is so wrong as to constitute stupid.

History lesson:

August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)

Supporters of Jackson opposed this lame-duck nomination, leading to a debate of nine days on the floor of the Senate. Supporters of Adams’s maneuver argued that it was a duty of the president to fill vacant slots, even in the waning days of a presidency. They offered an amendment on the floor:

“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”

But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.)

According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”


Or:

the case of Justice Henry Baldwin, who died in April 1844. That was also an election year, but the sitting president, John Tyler, was not running for reelection, having been expelled from the Whig Party during his presidency. So in effect, the Whig-controlled Senate was run by an opposition party.

Tyler made nine Supreme Court nominations during his presidency, but only one was approved. He made three nominations to fill Baldwin’s seat, all of which were rejected by the Senate until the new president, James Polk, took office. Polk was a Democrat, and even his first choice for the seat was rejected by the still-majority Whigs.


During the 1852 campaign between Democrat Franklin Pierce and Whig Winfield Scott, Justice John McKinley died in July. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig who was not running for reelection, nominated three candidates — one in August, one in January and one in February. The Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on two candidates and the third withdrew after the Senate postponed a vote until after inauguration. One of Fillmore’s nominations was never even considered by the Senate, while the other was simply tabled.


The fact that you can find any number of examples where the Senate acted promptly to confirm a nominee does not instill an obligation to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

You think this is an example of how pathetically government works.

I think this is a sterling example of how well it works. The only things that get done are ones that have broad consensus. Garland doesn't fit that bill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

You think this is an example of how pathetically government works.

I think this is a sterling example of how well it works. The only things that get done are ones that have broad consensus. Garland doesn't fit that bill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

You think this is an example of how pathetically government works.

I think this is a sterling example of how well it works. The only things that get done are ones that have broad consensus. Garland doesn't fit that bill.

Of course Mitch McConnell announced a complete obstruction of the process before Garland was ever mentioned.


Just sayin'

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I shall give you 1 million dollars with the advice and consent of the senate.

Until the senate consents - you get nothing. Exact same construction.
You don't have a single legal or constitutional expert cite saying it means what you think. Stop wasting column inches. No one is interested in your opinion - back it up with a cite.

False analogy. You can bring nothing before the senate. So your assinine offer of 1 million dollars is just you gargling shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

Politicians are held above everything, didn't you know that? Work ethic does not apply. They're not required to do anything within a reasonable timetable because, yanno, constitution. It is pathetic that this is so much the norm these days that people are justifying the actions. So many people can't stand working with millenials yet are okay with a country being ran by people with similar attitudes?

You think this is an example of how pathetically government works.

I think this is a sterling example of how well it works. The only things that get done are ones that have broad consensus. Garland doesn't fit that bill.

May I borrow those glasses when you're done? I'd love to see the world in a rose color.

If Garland doesn't fit the bill, they should vote him down. They're just playing politics, a child's board game. Just bigger people, bigger board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Obama could end this all with a recess appointment. That is what he should do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Bullshit. I understand the point your're trying to make - you are just wrong.

I shall give you 1 million dollars with the advice and consent of the senate.

Until the senate consents - you get nothing. Exact same construction. The words mean what they mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I quoted you the CONGRESSION RESEARCH center. Which is a body that exists solely to advise congress on legal and scientific matters. They are the gold standard - they tell you you are wrong.

You don't have a single legal or constitutional expert cite saying it means what you think. Stop wasting column inches. No one is interested in your opinion - back it up with a cite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01




So.... In Summary.

quote:


The other principal controversy arising from the Appointments Clause has concerned the authority of the Senate to reject nominees. The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential "point of view" were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


And just like last time, his appointment would be found to be illegal.
Supreme Court decision said - the senate is in session when the senate says its in session. And you can be damn sure McConnell won't let it go out of session tell after the election.

Isnt the senate due to go on vacation soon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01




So.... In Summary.

Your own article proves you wrong, yet again.

quote:


The other principal controversy arising from the Appointments Clause has concerned the authority of the Senate to reject nominees. The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential "point of view" were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination

Notice the "accept" is separate and distinct from approve? In other words, the senate can ignore it. Just as you've been told three times now.
I commend you for actually using a cite.

Now go find one that supports yourposition, instead of destroying it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01




So.... In Summary.

Your own article proves you wrong, yet again.

quote:


The other principal controversy arising from the Appointments Clause has concerned the authority of the Senate to reject nominees. The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential "point of view" were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination

Notice the "accept" is separate and distinct from approve? In other words, the senate can ignore it. Just as you've been told three times now.
I commend you for actually using a cite.

Now go find one that supports your position, instead of destroying it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


You might try smaller words. The Senate has the POWER to advise and consent. It has no duty to do so. (See, all two syllables or less.)