10 years nearly @ (say) 10 minutes per day - almost a whole month of my life doiing this puzzle.
Done. NG. EZPZ.
Sri Srinivasan was confirmed 97-0 in the Senate in 2013. Scalia was, admittedly, brilliant. That made him also dangerous (see Citizens United, for one example). Let's hope that Obama's nomination will be as brilliant as Scalia and Kagen, without Scalia's agenda. And let's hope that the Senate - especially the strict constructionists - take their responsibilities seriously and advise and consent to a fair nomination forthwith.
That's cute the way you think Obama will nominate the next SCJ.
or rather that Obama will appoint the next SCJ. I'm sure he'll try to nominate one. That'll get shot down and it'll fall in the hands of the next president.
So, 1Hammer, your encouraging both the President and the Senate to ignore their constitutional responsibilities? On what basis (historical, constitutional or otherwise)?
What part did I say that they should ignore their constitutional responsibilities? Be specific.
Are you that daft? No need to respond . . .
See kids, when you ask a lefty to think for themselves, they can't do it.
"[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court . . . ." So the President nominates and the Senate and President appoint. You don't want that to happen, apparently? I don't see a clause that says "unless a President has less than one year left in his office", or a clause that says "unless there's an obstructionist Senate controlled by a different party." Frankly, I'm rather hoping the Senate will not confirm a well-qualified individual. Such a move will further ensure not only a democratic president, but a democratic senate, as well!
I didn't suggest that either party skip their responsibilities. Nothing in that paragraph is counter to what I stated. If Obama tries to appoint a poor choice (he will) it's the Senate's responsibility to block it. Heck, Obama, as a Senator, supported the filibustering of Alito, and voted against Roberts. So was he not doing his responsibility?
Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy with 13 months left in his second term.
The republicans will not confirm anyone because it will swing the court from majority conservative to whatever the new justice ends up being.
This is why Presidential and Senate elections matter.
Checks and balances working as intended.
Unfortunately 1Hammer it seems it is always the Republicans who complain when the rules allow the other side to benefit. Then they want to change to rules or ignore them. That is why we have the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Also the constitution states that the Senate must hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner. Here is what Joe Biden said when Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., said: ''I'm glad the President has made his choice. We will get the process under way and move as rapidly as is prudent. We want to conduct the committee's review with both thoroughness and dispatch.''
Weren't the democrats talking about getting rid of the filibuster a few short years ago? Gosh, how short term can your memory be?
Actually it was the republicans that talked about getting rid of the filibuster. They called getting rid of it the Nuclear Option.
There's a viral agenda underway to destroy this country from the inside out. For some reason women can't look past feel good memes to realize they have been played on a regular basis. The men aren't any different. Everything in the media today promotes the idea that going off to war and killing foreigners is heroic and solves everything. We've lost most of our industry. H1B, sounds like H1N1 doesn't it?, H1B exacerbates the transition away from American labor, so, naturally, put an Indian on the SC. The TPP which Americans weren't allowed to learn about or discuss takes power away from govt and gives it to corporations. There no longer is a Republic or a Democracy. Its now a one party system.
Yeah, they did, and then the democrats talked about doing it after Obama's election.
agreed jackt. Labor creates all wealth. And when you devalue Labor this is what you get.
I'm done for today. Thanks for the lively discussion 1Hammer
I think the Democrats and Republicans for the most part once elected forget that they are there for the people and think of their own pockets
One world govt. Digital currency and a cashless society. Corporations R Us. The future looks bright. Now, whatever to do with all those 7 or 8 billion eaters in a neofeudal system where robots will replace those only good for manual labor? Outer space? Nah. At a minimum will have to nuke at least half. First convince them of a cause that's just, noble and a good idea. We'll need a villain or two. Hey, once again we can make money selling weapons systems to both sides. WW III coming up in a neighborhood near you. Anyone have any used drones for sale? I''ll swap you my playstation 3 and throw in Assassin's Creed, God of War III and Call of Duty:Advanced Warfare.
This is a game chatterbox...86 the politics
86 that?? LOL. Wilson lives.
Elections have consequences. Republicans control the Senate so they can block Obama's appointment if they choose. But as Diane points out, that will have consequences in November. It could be that the Republican base will stay home and not vote in the next election if the Republican Senate confirms Obama's appointment!
I wish Dems would stop using Justice Kennedy as the example for an election year confirmation. Kennedy was confirmed about a year after Justice Powell announced his retirement. President Reagan then nominated Robert Bork who the Dem controlled Senate refused to confirm. President Reagan then nominated Douglas Ginsburg who was force to withdraw after the Senate Dems were astounded that he had smoked marijuana. In Oct '87 Reagan nominated Justice Kennedy. So as you can see, the majority of the time after Powell's retirement was announced was NOT an election year.
Difficulty score 91. Required green.
Tuco: could you give me the article, section and paragraph in the Constitution that says the senate must hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner? I can't find it.
Tuco: the nuclear option was considered by the Republican, but they never pulled the trigger. The Democrats actually did it in 2013. Senate rules now prohibit a filibuster of executive and judicial appointments, except for the Supreme Court. So if a small group of Senators wants to block a Supreme court appointment the filibuster is still an option.
Gus - seems to me that's exactly what they're doing - chatting, a lively, friendly, educational chat, no?