Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
I incorrectly used appointment rather than Nomination as you said... but it dosn't change my question > but thanks for the Civics lesson.. I in no way shape or form have I suggested what you have written I never mentioned recess appointments.. I incorrectly used a term.. you caught that but couldn't figure the context of my question?
The different term changes the context.
. I have only expressed where in History? Has a Sitting president be told don't even forward a nomination ( not appointment ) for advice and consent...
you dont think this is the kinda of behavior that creates that tyrannical power of one branch which you wrote ^^^^
I don't know if, when, or where in history a President was told not to submit a nomination. But that would not prevent a President from submitting one. The leader of the Senate forecasting that it would attempt to block Presidential action has happened many, many, times by both parties. I forget which speaker of which branch said that a President's or his party's proposals would be "dead on arrival" for the rest of his term. It is a common and expected practice to block the opposition's legislation or nomination. Opposition is not tyranny. The suppressing or elimination of opposition is tyranny. Constitutional opposition is the intended check and balance used to prevent that tyranny.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election
yet historically: from the NY times The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.
|
It is not written in stone or in the Constitution that more than or less than a given number of days are required to confirm a nomination. It is certainly not required in the Constitution that a President's nomination must be confirmed. The number of SCOTUS Justices is not specified in the Constitution, and is decided by Congress. The Constitution does not require nine Supreme Court Judges. The NY Times may get their panties all up in a bunch if it takes more than 125 days to vote on a successor, but it is not the arbiter of who or when or if a successor is voted on or if their even will be a successor. The NY Times is not the authority on the matter. It certainly is not impartial. And its opinions should be viewed in the light of its partisan and ideological predilections.
And, as has been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When a political party's agenda scarcely hides that it is about rewriting the Constitution by appointing activist Judges who have no intention of letting the Constitution stand in their way of approving unconstitutional legislation which agrees with their ideological views, then the opposition must defend the Constitution with whatever powers it grants them to do so.
If you wish to preserve the Constitution, we are at a critical point in history when all stops must be pulled to avoid its wreck.
On the other hand, if you think the Constitution is "living and breathing,"a slave which follows to current fashions, then it is of no account and should be, as Progressives believe, tossed into the dust bin of history. (Strange that you would even insist, as a believer of a living breathing constitution, that there must be an unchanging, static amount of days for a nomination to be voted on).
And, even if that were the case that the Constitution was defunct, how would that stop the Republicans from taking more than 125 days to vote on a nomination? Just because the NY Times says they shouldn't?