Should Republicans block any nominee from Hillary indefinitely?

[Praxas]

what you call crybaby, would be the democrats if the role was reversed.

both parties play games

Nope you are flat wrong and would hold the dems to do the same and give an up or down vote. You just excuse crybaby tactics but then you guys are sore losers.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

no they don't, the original court was 5, and most of their history was 7.

In 1869, the circuit judges act created a statute that officially set the number to nine justices

http://legisworks.org/sal/16/stats/STATUTE-16-Pg44c.pdf

Refer to chapter XXII

 

[Praxas]

What if said nominee was a member of the KKK?

Then give a down vote. See how easy that was?

 

[Master PO]

Nope you are flat wrong and would hold the dems to do the same and give an up or down vote. You just excuse crybaby tactics but then you guys are sore losers.

you might hold them?

it does not take intelligence to know,that if the role was reversed the democrats would do the very same thing.

the parties both play games

 

[apdst]

Then give a down vote. See how easy that was?

Unless, of course you don't like the nominee and then screw the up-or-down vote.

 

[Henrin]

The GOP and you are just throwing a temper tantrum. Don't like the nominee, give an up or down vote. The more you guys obstruct the more you will lose. the GOP are looking more and more like crybabies each month. No wonder you support that.

You can call it whatever you please. As for me, after watching the left use the courts as a legislator and ignore plan wording in the constitution all my life and reading about how that has been going on for a very long time I have no willingness to be party to it continuing.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In 1869, the circuit judges act created a statute that officially set the number to nine justices

http://legisworks.org/sal/16/stats/STATUTE-16-Pg44c.pdf

Refer to chapter XXII

Statute cannot override the constitution, which requires senate confirmation and that the court function. the court must review cases, and the senate can choose not to confirm judges, that law notwithstanding.

 

[BlackCat]

maybe her nuclear warhead has a flat tire.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In 1869, the circuit judges act created a statute that officially set the number to nine justices

http://legisworks.org/sal/16/stats/STATUTE-16-Pg44c.pdf

Refer to chapter XXII

If conress critters can make such a law then congrees critters can change such a law. BTW, that same act mandated retirement at age 70 (after ten years of servce) for any judge.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

The OP polling answers are nonsensical. It should be more about the nominee than Hillary, meaning if Republicans inherently block them all despite the merit of the nominee then Republicans... again... are looking like angry obstructionists.

 

[Anagram]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

By all means use the Senate's influence to force a more moderate justice, but they shouldn't automatically block any justice selected by her. That would set a horrible precedent that would certainly be utilized by the Democrats next time they have the opportunity.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So they should just accept for no valid reason that the courts will be run by liberals for decades to come?

If the American people choose to elect Hillary Clinton, then by definition they are choosing a Democrat rather than a Republican to choose Scalia's replacement. How is that not a valid reason?

 

[Captain Adverse]

In 1869, the circuit judges act created a statute that officially set the number to nine justices

http://legisworks.org/sal/16/stats/STATUTE-16-Pg44c.pdf

Refer to chapter XXII

The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices under Article III.

Article II does not specify that Congress shall enact legislation determining the number of Justices which must sit on the court. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that states how many Justices there must be, or how the number is supposed to be determined.

IMO citing legislation to that effect does not make much difference, since the President can choose not to make any appointments, and Congress can choose not to act on any Presidential appointments. :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

If the American people choose to elect Hillary Clinton, then by definition they are choosing a Democrat rather than a Republican to choose Scalia's replacement. How is that not a valid reason?

How many of the American people won't decide that is what they want? You not only have all the Trump voters, but also all the people that didn't vote at all. How are you going to claim consent by the people when only a minority of them voted for Hillary?

 

[Henrin]

If conress critters can make such a law then congrees critters can change such a law. BTW, that same act mandated retirement at age 70 (after ten years of servce) for any judge.

I wouldn't be as opposed to having a vote for a justice if they weren't in their life.

I also wouldn't mind if clearly partisan justices and idiotic justices could be removed. For example, when John Roberts said flat out that he must agree with a law because congress said such and such his ass should be gone. ****ing numbnuts. Or when the Supreme Court quite literally rewrote the ACA to say "what it was intended to say" every last one of those idiots should have been removed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

no they don't, the original court was 5, and most of their history was 7.

Year = Number of Justices
1789 = 6
1807 = 7
1837 = 9
1863 = 10
1866 = 7
1869 = 9 (not change between then and now)



2016-1789 = 227 years.

52 years with less than 9 Justices

179 years with 9 Justices.



No where near "most of their history".


History of the Federal Judiciary


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


McConnell pissed me off with his tactics of refusing to provide an up or down vote based on who the President was and not the qualifications of the nominee.



If my party (the GOP) tries to pull this bull**** of we won't take a floor vote on any Clinton nominee and will filibuster such a vote. Then I would support the Dem Senate pulling the nuclear option. Such an action puts a Constitutional question to the floor of the Senate to be settled by a simple majority vote which then set precedent, this would allow the nominee to then receive a floor vote and consent of the Senate by a simple majority.



(I'm not saying the Senate is required to consent to the nominee, they of course can vote in the negative. This only establishes that a vote occur to express the will of the Senate and not the will of the Senate Majority Leader.)



>>>>

 

[joG]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

Of course not. That would be stupid. But it is highly likely that any candidate she will put up should be.

 

[Casper]

That doesn't answer my question. If I can avoid a consequence like your side ruling the most powerful branch in government for the next thirty years I'm taking it.

Do not pass at least one candidate in 4 to 8 years and there will be no your side when it is done, you know that right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So they should just accept for no valid reason that the courts will be run by liberals for decades to come?

Hey, the Senate Majority Leader said the next President should get to choose. Let the people express their will through the election.


Only thing that sucks is it's likely to be President Clinton.



>>>>

 

[Bob N]

Well that's one way for the he GOP to keeping losing seats due to them just being cry baby sore losers.

*** if they do and *** if they don't.

 

[DVSentinel]

Absolutely not. The only chance this country has for it's future is to push towards a revolution that once and for all destroys leftist power in the US. The "Butcher of Benghazi"'s election and subsequent appointment of another non-constitutional leftist to the court will put us much closer the the cleansing the country needs.

 

[Praxas]

Absolutely not. The only chance this country has for it's future is to push towards a revolution that once and for all destroys leftist power in the US. The "Butcher of Benghazi"'s election and subsequent appointment of another non-constitutional leftist to the court will put us much closer the the cleansing the country needs.

Awww does someone need a nap :lamo

 

[Praxas]

You can call it whatever you please. As for me, after watching the left use the courts as a legislator and ignore plan wording in the constitution all my life and reading about how that has been going on for a very long time I have no willingness to be party to it continuing.

It's ok, watching the GOP **** themselves is becoming quite entertaining. I encourage you and others to keep putting Dems in charge with your tantrums and sour grapes. You're doing a great job lol

 

[Praxas]

what you call crybaby, would be the democrats if the role was reversed.

both parties play games

Keep telling yourself that buy folks like you just keep enabling the dems to take back more seats. Keep up the good work.