No, not when they've been legislating from the bench for a while now.
Breaking News Dems to SCOTUS - "Heal" or be "Restructred."
- Thread starter CurtisLemay
- Start date
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
This is just an extension of the War of Laws which is the one thing I fear in the United States right now, because if we break down the legal order, then all bets are off, and the leftists are playing with fire on this -- they are literally engaging in the same kind of structural destructive processes which brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Psyckosama
Member
Please read articles before responding to them. Out of hand rejection of sources, especially before reading them, is not an acceptable discussion practice on The Sietch.
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.www.foxnews.com
Oh, this isn't just a little bit ominous.
Oh, lets take a look at...
Sees Fox News
*starts laughing*
My guess is a couple fringe idiots opened thier mouths and thus sensationalist bullshit happened.
This is almost on the level of those "A republican looked at a woman's ass 20 years ago" articles on The Mary Sue.
clancyphile
Pro-DH, pro-artificial turf baseball fan
One of the idiots is running for President (Gillibrand), another is the Senate Minority Whip (Durbin).
In other words: The second-highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate is taking part in this shakedown.
Edgeplay_cgo
Well-known member
Then there will be war, after which there will be no more Democrat Fascists.
Psyckosama
Member
The lack of selfawareness in this post is humorous.
Staff Post
Could you please clarify statements like this in the future (if not done in good jest). Labeling entire groups of people as members of an extreme political ideology without substantiation is contrary to our forums concept of civil discourse. Thank you.
Lightwhispers
Well-known member
From the PoV of the Left, the legal order is breaking down due to the continued support of Trump, especially McConnell's statements that impeachment would go nowhere, regardless of evidence. And McConnell's (perceived) unconstitutional blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination already involved the Court, so I would say that incendiaries are being tossed around around by both parties.
Which is largely a joke.
The Senate had zero obligation to vote on Garland. The Senate must consent, and the Senate can spend as long deciding whether or not to Consent as they want.
As for Impeachment, again the Senate has zero obligation to remove the President from office. Especially not when the House hasn't even passed Articles of Impeachment.
Devil's advocate here, but shooting down a nomination without so much as holding a hearing is hardly advising and consenting. The blocking of the vote was perfectly within the rules, but just as nakedly partisan as revealing last-minute accusations of sexual assault.
I mean, by that same argument, it's perfectly legal for Gillibrand and Durbin to file an amicus brief or whatever they did to threaten the supreme court. It's still nakedly partisan and unhealthy for our democracy.
Oh, it was absolutely partisan to refuse to hold hearings on Garland. The Republicans refused to hold hearings because a number of them, individually, didn't want to go on record as voting against him. This way the complaints were virtually all tossed on McConnell alone instead of the Republicans as a whole.
It was also entirely within the Senate's remit to do what they did.
And while I think that the Amicus Brief was idiotic, it was also something that was entirely within the individuals authority to do.
Although I would rate it as even less healthy for our democracy than what was done to Garland. Afterall, that wasn't one branch of the government threatening another branch. In the Amicus Brief you have sitting Senators threatening the Supreme Court in an attempt to get a desired outcome.
Speaker4thesilent
Crazed Deplorable
The amusing thing, is that the Democrats have done the exact same thing before. The process of refusing to vote on a nomination to the Supreme Court in the last year of the president’s administration is called the Biden Rule.
After Crazy Uncle Joe, who was 100% behind it when it was used against a Republican nominee. Turnabout is fair play.
Edgeplay_cgo
Well-known member
I apologize. I should have added the phrase . . . or no Republicans. If we degenerate into civil war, which Heaven forbid but is likely, I believe it will be extremely bloody, and will result in massive oppression of the losing side. The levels of hate are almost at that level,now.
Last edited:
Lightwhispers
Well-known member
How a large portion of the country perceives the actions of its government is not something I would classify as a joke.
And, by the letter of the law, you could well be correct - "Advice and consent" covers a lot of ground. However, to refuse to consider someone is something the Senate had not done before, or at least not in quite a while, so it reinforced the perception that McConnell did not care about the traditions and norms which provided much of the legitimacy of the Senate's role as "senior house" of Congress. Which is what I read Punch Card Girl as referring to - the destruction of the legitimacy of government is as much a matter of perception as reality.
Joe Biden is a putz. Just saying. That said, aside from the one speech where he proposed it, did that "Biden Rule" ever actually get put into the Senate Rules, or used against a nominee?
They can refuse to confirm the President's appointment.
So why didn't they just do that?
I suspect because then they'd have to justify why the appointee wasn't suitable. And Obama would just find another. Easier to just refuse to bring the appointment to a vote.