Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court

[sjmay]

Several people have said this, but can't seem to find it in the constitution. Can you point where the senate is required to vote on a nominee?

FYI - telling the president to fly a kite is giving the Senate's advice / refusal of consent.

The kid is a broken record....for some reason, he can't fathom that a no vote, is a vote.

President: I want to nominate XXXXXX for this position....

Senate: No, we won't have a vote...

Apparently he thinks the President can then go.... "Well, you didn't say I couldn't......."

 

[Jean-s]

The kid is a broken record....for some reason, he can't fathom that a no vote, is a vote.

President: I want to nominate XXXXXX for this position....

Senate: No, we won't have a vote...

Apparently he thinks the President can then go.... "Well, you didn't say I couldn't......."

dcsports asked a good question and you mocked him. He simply wanted a citation from the U.S. Constitution that the Senate must vote for or against a president's nominee. He said he could not find this requirement of the necessity to vote in the Constitution. Neither can I.

 

[sjmay]

dcsports asked a good question and you mocked him. He simply wanted a citation from the U.S. Constitution that the Senate must vote for or against a president's nominee. He said he could not find this requirement of the necessity to vote in the Constitution. Neither can I.

I was agreeing with him, I was talking about the kid who keeps insisting there is a requirement......

 

[Jean-s]

I was agreeing with him, I was talking about the kid who keeps insisting there is a requirement......

I beg your pardon; I misunderstood your post.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree. The senate should, and is required, to vote to confirm or not an appointee. 2016 republicans said nope, not even going to vote as it's an election year. 2020 republicans said yep, have to vote because it's an election year. Raging hypocrisy.

dems prevented the senate from voting on Estrada and Keisler. where were the Dems then?

 

[sjmay]

dems prevented the senate from voting on Estrada and Keisler. where were the Dems then?

STRAWMAN!!!! I'm not talking about the Democrats hypocrisy, I'm talking about the OTHER SIDES hypocrisy.....you can't attribute that to me....

Did I get that right?

 

[TurtleDude]

STRAWMAN!!!! I'm not talking about the Democrats hypocrisy, I'm talking about the OTHER SIDES hypocrisy.....you can't attribute that to me....

Did I get that right?

I was responding to another poster who was complaining the GOP was hypocritical for not allowing a vote on Garland.

 

[sjmay]

I was responding to another poster who was complaining the GOP was hypocritical for not allowing a vote on Garland.

I know, I was doing my best impression of that poster.......I suck.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes it does.

The constitution requires a vote. Not voting is neither consent or denial or consent, by definition.


It’s simply the constitution. That the senate violated it doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional.

False.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

"There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office."

Before the recent one, the one before that where the exact same thing happened was Abe Fortas under Nixon. You are crying because it impacts your political party, it has nothing to do with Constitutional or advice and consent, its the same political bullshit the Democrats would and HAVE manipulated to get the nominees they want for the court.

Senate rules apply on the nomination process and the SCOTUS has replied multiple times that Senate rules are those rules the Senate drafts and they are Constitutional, that includes not taking up a vote due to Committee action or a nominee being tabled by the Senate Majority Leader.

Advice and consent has not been given if a positive vote has not been taken to give consent to a nominee.

 

[iliveonramen]

Obviously Democrats didn't learn anything with Trump's election in 2016. Trump was elected specifically because the American people were fed up with the leftist filth. Out of all the other Republicans candidates Trump was the most offensive and contrary to leftists, even though he was one of your ilk. Trump was elected to undo the numerous criminal acts by the Democratic Party, and the Obama administration in particular.

In other words, Trump was a lesson in Karma that the Democratic Party is obviously too dense to comprehend. What goes around, comes around. If you do not want to see another candidate like Trump, do not elect another criminal like Obama.

Harry Reid thought he was being clever when he abolished the filibuster for judicial appointments, until Democrats lost the next election and Republicans began appointing federal judges. So remember that when you talk about stacking the Supreme Court like petulant prepubescent children. What goes around, comes around.

Trump lost the popular vote. Trump eeked out an electoral vote by the slimmest margin in 5 battleground states. He got destroyed his first mid term. Can never predict the future but states like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are in play as leaning Biden.
You really need to get out more.

 

[Jean-s]

False.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

"There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office."

Before the recent one, the one before that where the exact same thing happened was Abe Fortas under Nixon. You are crying because it impacts your political party, it has nothing to do with Constitutional or advice and consent, its the same political bullshit the Democrats would and HAVE manipulated to get the nominees they want for the court.

Senate rules apply on the nomination process and the SCOTUS has replied multiple times that Senate rules are those rules the Senate drafts and they are Constitutional, that includes not taking up a vote due to Committee action or a nominee being tabled by the Senate Majority Leader.

Advice and consent has not been given if a positive vote has not been taken to give consent to a nominee.

In other words, the Constitution is silent about the procedure of Advice and Consent and the Senate has decided that there should be a vote to decide according to their rules.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Criminal? That's rich considering Trump was fined $2million for charity fraud, settled $25,000,000 in a class action lawsuit for screwing thousands out of millions for a fake university,,
got his father, in a state of dementia, to change his will to screw his deceased brother's estate out the will, resulting in his grandchild with cerebral palsy without health insurance just so he, not happy with 1/5 of his father's estate as inheritence, got 1/4 of his father's estate.

And I'm just getting started. Obama is a choir boy compared to Trump, I mean, he's the guy who backs pedophiles and hangs out with them.

We learned a lot in 2016, especially in 2018, we learned that a majority of the electorate do not like what republicans are selling.

2,868,676 more votes were cast for a democrat president in 2016, 17,537,638 more votes were cast for democrats than republicans in the senate in 2018, and 9,710,275 more votes were cast for democrats than for republicans in the house in 2018,. These are incontrovertible facts that the majority of the electorate favor the message offered by democrats.

Reid had to do that because of huge backlogs in the judiciary, judges getting overworked, and McConnell was blocking all of O's appointments. But, leave to lying republicans to
twist the truth, because all they are interested in is power, by any means, shady or otherwise. Speaking of shady pieces of bull feces, look no farther than your president......

Interesting you should mention prepubescent children, when your president has backed a pedophile, has been accused by 25 women of sexual assault, one of rape when she was 13, by Trump and Epstein, you know, the pedo guy (and gal) Trump has been paling around with for years in these pictures? Hammm? Not only that, he bragged about barging in on female teens in their various stages of dress in their dressing room, to 'inspect' them, evidence provided on request. Trump thought it was amusing. Do I need to mention the ***** grabbing, gotta love it when your ilk elects a piece of human garbage like that.

View attachment 67301529

I mean, if you want to go down this road, there's plenty more of Trump diarrhea for you to suck on, I know you love the smell.

Just curious. How many pictures of prominent democrats do you think are floating around with Epstein of his girlfriend?

 

[Jean-s]

Just curious. How many pictures of prominent democrats do you think are floating around with Epstein of his girlfriend?

I haven't seen any Democrats but I do recall seeing Donald Trump with the pimp. He keeps odd company. How did he get to be president, one has to wonder.

 

[OscarLevant]

Just curious. How many pictures of prominent democrats do you think are floating around with Epstein of his girlfriend?

A few, but none has as many as that which are with Epstein and Trump, and none are the current president, none have 25 women accusing them of sexual assault, none
have tapes of them bragging about committing sexual assault, and not one of those, unlike Trump, is there a sexual assault charge of rape committed with Epstein on an underage girl.

That is the salient point, among the other salient points.

If you want to shout Clinton, cool, I was critical of him, as well, but that doesn't refute the sins of Trump.

And none of those prior presidents or individuals, owing to incompetence, resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless covid deaths.



Not one of those others with Epstein schtupped a porn star just after his newly wed wife gave birth, then paid that porn star $130k to hush it up, resulting in his lawyer going
to jail, and after his lawyer paid the money, in advance, loaning Trump the hush money ( which Trump paid back, we have the canceled checks ) he threw his lawyer under the bus.

One of these says, Trump fans ought to throw Trump under the bus, just like he will you, sooner or later.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In other words, the Constitution is silent about the procedure of Advice and Consent and the Senate has decided that there should be a vote to decide according to their rules.

According to our history, the Senate has decided the opposite on multiple occasions. Read for comprehension not rationalization.

 

[Jean-s]

According to our history, the Senate has decided the opposite on multiple occasions. Read for comprehension not rationalization.

Maybe someone else can explain it so I can understand.

 

[sjmay]

Maybe someone else can explain it so I can understand.

Simple, there is no requirement to vote, the only requirement is to advise and consent.

IF there is no vote, there is no consent...it's impossible to have silent consent.

This shouldn't be this hard......(not saying you, just in general)

 

[rahl]

I mean... it kinda does...

I mean, no it doesn't.

 

[rahl]

So then you don't think there is political hypocrisy on both sides? Well that just makes you a blind partisan hack...

strawman

 

[rahl]

Really? Point out the EXACT quote in the constitution that says that please...

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

 

[rahl]

Several people have said this, but can't seem to find it in the constitution. Can you point where the senate is required to vote on a nominee?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

FYI - telling the president to fly a kite is giving the Senate's advice / refusal of consent.

no it isn't. The senate is comprised of 100 people. One man (mcconnel) does not speak for the senate. A vote is required.

 

[rahl]

dems prevented the senate from voting on Estrada and Keisler. where were the Dems then?

in breach of their constitutional duties. party is irrelevant.

 

[rahl]

False.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

"There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office."

Before the recent one, the one before that where the exact same thing happened was Abe Fortas under Nixon. You are crying because it impacts your political party, it has nothing to do with Constitutional or advice and consent, its the same political bullshit the Democrats would and HAVE manipulated to get the nominees they want for the court.

Senate rules apply on the nomination process and the SCOTUS has replied multiple times that Senate rules are those rules the Senate drafts and they are Constitutional, that includes not taking up a vote due to Committee action or a nominee being tabled by the Senate Majority Leader.

Advice and consent has not been given if a positive vote has not been taken to give consent to a nominee.

nope..Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

 

[sjmay]

nope..Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

And yet....Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says NOTHING ABOUT A VOTE......why is that?

 

[rahl]

And yet....Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says NOTHING ABOUT A VOTE......why is that?

because you have reading comprehension issues, and you don't know what words mean.