If President Obama does not appoint the next Supreme court justice we will have a right winged

[Maraya1969]

crazy person taking this spot in 2017. Someone who will vote to kill Roe V Wade and every other good thing this country has. The person will be a racist and greedy maleficent person just like Trump

Even if the rat bastard republicans stand watch in congress so he can't appoint one on recess he can appoint one with an executive power. Let them fight it next year. This is an extraordinary situation.

Or can someone pull the fire alarm in the House and he can do the appointment right then? (j/k but not)

The right has deceived, blocked, lied, stolen and been malicious and greedy and we need to do something to fight it.

I am sick of Democrats always following the rules. It's gotten us right where we are.

[calguy]

1. He won't

and we will. This is what happens when enough people on our side don't vote.
Welcome to the future.

[Maraya1969]

5. This election was stolen. In many ways besides actual votes. If we don't do something to

stop that we will never have any power anymore.

I wish people would stop saying that narcissistic won the election because he didn't. The electoral college was stolen and Hillary won the popular vote.

The only way this will not happen in the future is if we face it now and do something about it. Blaming this fiasco on Democrats will help nothing

[WillowTree]

6. How do you figure that "the electoral college was stolen"?

[KamaAina]

11. Vote suppression, for openers.

CrossCheck alone wiped many more voters off the rolls than Captain Carotene's margins in WI, MI and PA.

[Maraya1969]

12. Didn't you wonder why there were so many boxes of paper votes that were damaged so they couldn't

be counted? I think they went after the places that could get them the electoral votes and hacked them there.

Remember at the beginning of election day FL was given a 97% chance of going for Hillary? According to early voting polls trump needed to win 57% of the vote ON ELECTION DAY to win.

And he won FL.

There was selective hacking going on and it was set up to win the electoral college for trump.

[WillowTree]

16. The recounts, as far as they went, tell a different story.

Look, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. That's your prerogative.

Bottom line is that the President has no constitutional authority whatsoever to unilaterally appoint a Supreme Court justice without advice and consent of the Senate. You apparently don't want to believe that, either, but it's true nonetheless.

[Maraya1969]

37. trump is already doing things that are completely unconstitutional and getting away with it!

They always do shitty crappy things to hurt this country.

Their advise and consent to the government about the Supreme Court nominee was to ignore it. They didn't hold a vote to say they don't approve. They just ignored it.

At some point the president can step in I would think

[WillowTree]

40. "At some point the president can step in I would think"

Can you cite a passage in the Constitution to support that supposition?

Hint: There isn't one.

[Maraya1969]

46. Maybe this situation was never anticipated?

[WillowTree]

50. And thus, no provision giving the President any authority to do what you want.

[bowens43]

85. So Hillary is going to be president?

she lost he won , get over it and start concentrating on how we can take back congress in 2018

[tritsofme]

17. You say that as if it is Obama's fault. It's not that he won't, he CAN'T

My apologies if that was not your intention, but he simply doesn't have the power to unilaterally fill the vacancy.

[Hoyt]

2. Sadly, I think we are out of luck. Too bad more people weren't focused on this critical aspect

of the election.

[Maraya1969]

3. Why wouldn't President Obama try to use his executive privileges? What the republicans have

done is reprehensible. (I can't even remember the name of the nominee)

There must be something he can do.

What are they going to do to him? Impeach him? And I know he is a man of character but this seems like an exceptional situation with the alternative being severe damage to the welfare of the US citizens.

And I don't think they should be able to get away with not even allowing a vote on the appointment

Then again can the Democrats block the next appointee?

[Hoyt]

10. Apparently the majority of voters -- mostly ignorant white wingers -- were fine with GOPers'

treatment of Garland's nomination. It's ugly, but a recess appointment for one year isn't going to accomplish much if anything.

[Maraya1969]

38. We should not have to be at the mercy of their ignorance.

[Yo_Mama]

20. He hasn't got an executive privilege to do this, that's why!

If anything, the refusal to process Garland was a winning issue for the GOP (judging by results). So that means that we are where we are.

What it may do is cause the SC to reconsider the NLRB ruling at some later date, but that ruling was caused by an apparent overreach in recess appointments, so there is nothing at all to be gained by President Obama trying to make some unconstitutional move now.

[Maraya1969]

39. Really? What would they do if he just appointed this man to the court and swore him in?

Impeach him? Sure they would try and undo it but that will take up time and resources that they may not want to use right in the beginning of asshole's presidency

[onenote]

58. No qualified jurist is going to accept a blatantly unconstitutional appointment

I would certainly hope anyone we would want to be a SCOTUS justice has more respect for the Constitution than to accept such an appointment.

[SlimJimmy]

30. Okay, let's get serious here for a moment. The President doesn't have the power to "appoint" a

Supreme Court justice. This can only be done with the advice and consent of Congress. End of story. It's time to move on and move forward. There are many other fish to fry here. Let's try to focus on the battles we can win.

[beaglelover]

61. Agree 100%. Bernie or busters and Stein voters are to blame for this result.

[yeoman6987]

4. Judge garlin went back to his old job

He saw the writing on the wall. We got screwed.

[Charles Bukowski]

7. I'd rather Bernie Busters not breed, but if they do

I can't wait for these progressive puritans to look their kids in the eye and tell them they voted for Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or no one at all.

We're royally fucked for a generation now.

[Sherman A1]

8. So how do you really feel?

Supported Bernie, Held my nose and voted for HRC, but I find your comment more than unkind.

HRC and the DNC lost this election, the GOP did not win it.

[marlakay]

15. There are a lot of people on this board

Who think no one should have run against Hillary, no primary.

Everything within me says that is not rght.

I was like you voted for Bernie then Hillary. I was for someone else in 07 then they dropped out and I went to Obama.

That is democracy. That is free choice.

Until people on this forum go back to treating one another with respect we will never win again, don't you think the republicans are loving the split we have?

[ismnotwasm]

21. "Held my nose and voted for Hillary" is not respectful

Just sayin

[Sherman A1]

31. About as respectful as the post to which I responded

[Kuhl]

86. Why?

[Maven]

34. Oh I'm so sorry you had to "hold your nose" and vote for our nominee

That must have been really rough on you.

[Sherman A1]

36. It was

and the results were not surprising at all.

[Maven]

51. With the number of privileged, self-important voters on "our side", no, it wasn't.

Sorry your candidate lost. That, also, was not surprising.

[Sherman A1]

65. I like these exchanges

they remind me why things are the way they are and the results were what they were.....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. It could've been different if Hillary's camp had heeded the warnings and sage advice of Bernie's staff, instead of mocking them.

[Sherman A1]

81. Agreed

that however did not happen as we know and here we are.......

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Predictable as the sun rising in the east... could see this one comin a mile a way.

Fortunately, Bernie doesn't cut and run... you know he'll fight against the Fuhrer-Elect's fascist agenda, alone if he has to, til the day he leaves office to assume the Presidency himself.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Sherman A1]

84. +1

He seems to be the only one out there trying to do anything at this point.

[beaglelover]

62. We sure are, thanks to the Bernie or Busters and the Stein voters. Fuck them all!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Huh? Most of us voted for Hillary despite many of her anti-Bernie views to avoid the nightmare scenario of Pig-Excrement tRump as President.

[WillowTree]

9. The President has the power to appoint judges "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate".

Or don't you believe in following the Constitution?

[Maraya1969]

13. The republican's advise and consent was to vacate their jobs. Thus it is up to the president

to fix the problem

[WillowTree]

14. "The republican's advise and consent was to vacate their jobs". What does that mean?

[tritsofme]

18. That is simply not true, you are engaging in fantasy.

By failing to confirm Judge Garland, the Senate has given its advice and withheld its consent.

There just isn't some secret handshake President Obama can deploy to change this reality.

[Yo_Mama]

24. Is it possible that this poster believes that the Senate has the duty to consent to any

nomination a President makes???

[tritsofme]

26. There were some nonsense articles circulating that made the argument President Obama could declare

that since the Senate failed to act they had abdicated their constitutional duty and that he could move forward with the appointment unilaterally.

Again, this is thoroughly debunked nonsense, but it has left many people confused about what is actually possible.

[Maraya1969]

44. NO. You are not thinking out of the box here! Everyone is being rote here.

[Yo_Mama]

47. The Constitution does form a box. Are you claiming that Obama should create a

constitutional crisis??

There's nothing to gain here and everything to lose - even if he tried to make a recess appointment in violation of the rules set forth in NLRB, it would then go to court, and the chance of it winning is almost nil. Even if he did win, the appointment would last for only a year.

Why should President Obama be expected to take this on himself, in violation of existing law, common sense, and for an ultimately futile gesture?

This was the voters' job, not the president's.

[PoliticAverse]

28. "and withheld its consent." - indeed silence is not consent. n/t

[Maraya1969]

42. It is not dissent either n/t

[PoliticAverse]

48. The Constitution requires "consent" not lack of dissent. n/t

[Maraya1969]

43. They did not fail to confirm anyone. They did nothing. You cannot say that means consent or denial

They never voted on it.....for almost a year

[Yo_Mama]

49. The Constitution does not require them to deny.

Try to think about this logically.

What you are asking would utterly change the constitutional framework.

Do you believe that if the president didn't send a nomination to Congress within a certain period of time, the Senate could just pick someone they liked and confirm that person?

As it is, this may be a very good issue for Democrats for the 2018 mid-terms. It should motivate Democrats to get out there and vote very strongly, which will be the most important thing.

[Maraya1969]

69. There are consitutional scholars arguing about this now. Do you think your pat answer is the only

answer?

The Senate did not deny the appointment of Merrick Garland.

[Yo_Mama]

71. There are NO reputable constitutional scholars arguing about this.

None.

[tritsofme]

64. The Senate fails to act on nominees to various offices all the time.

And their nominations expire if they are not acted on by the end of the session. This is not new or controversial.

The president doesn't get to arbitrarily decide he has waited long enough and move forward unilaterally. That is magical thinking.

[Maraya1969]

66. WP - Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.3de440d21aa8

[tritsofme]

67. This is the sort of the throughly debunked nonsense article

I was referring to above, it has left folks like you honestly confused about what is truly possible.

[Maraya1969]

68. Sure. And the black and white thinking of the rest of you all has allowed the narcissist man child

who wants to start another nuclear arms race as president.

If you think "Getting out the vote" and picking a great candidate will get Democrats back in power you are lacking understanding and confused about what is truly possible.

We are in a whole different league now. We stay with the old way of doing things at our own peril.

[tritsofme]

70. Again this is magical thinking. It is not a matter of wanting it hard enough and making it so

President Obama isn't going to make appointments in this fashion because it would be unlawful and it would not stand. It's really no more complicated than that.

[LisiFFXV]

82. Read the whole constitution...

The house and senate are granted wide and far reaching power in deciding how to conduct business in their respective chambers.

If the senate wanted to, they could change the senate rules to decide the passage of bills based on a coin toss rather than votes. They could decide to consent to judicial appointments by having a senator from New York and a senator from California play a game of chess; should the senator from New York win the game, they consent. Likewise, they could decide to just do nothing and not consent to anything.

Do I wish we had gotten the SCOTUS appointment? Absolutely. But nothing will be served by misleading laypeople about how government works. One could argue that the gross ignorance and misunderstanding of even the basic functionality of government is partly why we are currently in the predicament that we are in. All of us should avoid this nonsense. I promise you, unless you at the bare minimum majored in poli sci or went to law school (I have), you probably don't even realize how ridiculous this argument is....

[Yo_Mama]

22. No, it is not. When the Constitution mandates a certain procedure, the

president doesn't have any authority whatsoever beyond that procedure.

The President nominates. The Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Senate MUST confirm. If the Senate rejected several nominees in a row, that would be entirely constitutional.

Try reading the constitution. It's short, snappy, has a certain narrative flow. Criticizing President Obama for not violating his oath of office is unfair and ridiculous.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Point well taken... I think a recess appointment is well within bounds. DO IT President Obama!!

[zippythepinhead]

53. The republicans are not following the constitution

It is implied that they are supposed to vote on consent They have completely failed their duty and oath to uphold the conus.

They are playing a game of semantics and sophistry to avoid their constitutional duties.

I predict, "there will be blood" as a result of their dirty tricks.

Is there anywhere in the conus where it says that they don't have to vote?

at least I'll never have to see turtle mcconnell's smirking face again.

[WillowTree]

56. "Is there anywhere in the conus where it says that they don't have to vote? "

Is there anywhere in the constitution that says that they do?

[zippythepinhead]

72. It's implied

like "you understood.

[WillowTree]

73. I "understood" no such thing.

[zippythepinhead]

75. Yes, it's obvious

As obvious as the nuclear shit storm when drump takes office.

[Yo_Mama]

19. The president has no executive power to appoint Supreme Court justices barring a recess appt.

The Constitution gives him the power to nominate and the Senate to advise and consent. Thus the president picks the candidate and the Senate must consent before the Justice may be seated.

When things are so clearly stated in the Constitution, a president can't just claim that he has an executive power that the Constitution clearly states he does NOT.

[ismnotwasm]

23. People are misunderstanding presidential powers.

Like, all over the place lately

[Yo_Mama]

25. Well, mocking Trump is going to fall flat when the other side wants to use the

Constitution as a football, isn't it??

The unfairness of blaming President Obama for not attempting to be a dictator is what burns my ass.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. "I am sick of Democrats always following the rules."

I'm not sure he can "appoint one with executive power". Never heard that before. Are you sure?

[Maraya1969]

45. No I am not sure. But boy do people feel the need to inform me about the constitution repeatedly

here. I am not sure. I am thinking outside the box. Maybe it can't be done but constantly just repeating that "this is the way the constitution should be interpreted" is not helpful at all

I appreciate your post though It is thoughtful

[zippythepinhead]

74. look what the repugs did in NC

truly, it was a violation of "separation of powers"

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. The "rules" are that the legislature makes new law, not the executive branch. The executive branch..

can either sign or veto the bill, and in the case of NC, the Repubs have a super majority, and can override the governor's veto. Only the judicial branch can toss out the law against the objections of the legislative & executive branches. And trust me, what just happened in NC will surely wind up in federal court.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Wait a minute. It would be a replacement for Scalia.

If Trump gets to appoint, then the Court would have the same balance as before his death and Roe was upheld all those other times even with Scalia.

What we have to prepare for is when another Justice retires during a Trump tenure.

[Maraya1969]

41. Or if we can get one in now we won't have to worry about the next one!

[onenote]

32. Apart from tearing up the Constitution

what exactly do you think President Obama should do.

And stop and think about it for a moment. Do you really think that any qualified jurist who has the respect for the Constitution we would want in a SCOTUS justice would accept a nomination/appointment that he knew was absolutely unlawful under the Constitution?

[dems_rightnow]

33. Sure, he can use his Executive Orders

Then he can use his executive orders to abolish the electoral college unilaterally, and change the second amendment to his liking. I'M SURPRISED HE DIDN'T THINK OF THESE THINGS.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Now your talkin!! Oh, and while he's at it, Obama should just refuse to leave office. (If only!)

[Kuhl]

88. Poe's law strikes again...

[moda253]

35. Look there is only one way to get it accomplished

Look there is only one way to get it accomplished and it isn't going to happen. We sat on our hands and did absolutely nothing about it. In any other democratic country something like this or what is happening in North Carolina would result in MASSIVE protests. People would be picking up the torches and pitchforks.

Here in America we piss and moan on facebook or message boards. The sad truth is that we don't care about our democracy anymore. The theft of a USSC appointment ought to be an offense against the people worthy of a real fight. Instead we barely let out a whimper.

[CrispyQ]

52. "The sad truth is that we don't care about our democracy anymore."

A lot of people didn't know about the 2000 SCOTUS fiasco in Florida until Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 came out. That movie opened so many eyes on so many issues. I have friends who could tell me the price of electronics all over town, but they couldn't name our two state senators. I have republican family members who are totally okay with the theft of the USSC appointment. Anything to advance the GOP is okay, but if the dems did the same thing, the GOP whine would wipe out all the noise in the universe. I think the hypocrisy is what wears me down the most. The childish outrage at anything the dems do, all the while behaving worse by hundreds of degrees. And the media's "both sides do it" drivel.

[Drunken Irishman]

59. There's a large portion of the population who thinks Trump won the popular vote comfortably.

I spoke to a woman the day of the election, where we discussed Hillary potentially winning the EC but losing the popular vote and she was under the belief Romney had actually won the popular vote in 2012.

The fact is, a huge chunk of America paid attention to the election for literally one day and then moved on. Anything that happened after that was lost on them.

[LaydeeBug]

54. I am sick of Democrats surrendering when the KGOPB *doesn't* follow the rules. nt

[onenote]

57. No qualified jurist who respects the Constitution (something we should want) would accept

a blatantly unconstitutional appointment.

It's not "surrendering" -- it's following the law.

And if we don't, then we have no argument that they should. And they've got the power the next four years. If Obama can ignore the constitution and appoint someone without the consent of the Senate, what's to stop the repubs on the Senate from saying they can ignore the constitution and replace Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan?

[LaydeeBug]

60. I am talking about the suppression...the threats...the calls to "monitor" voters

and scare them. They puff their chests and get in our faces, and we file lawsuits that we win, but they just ignore anyway.

Then, when their malfeasance pays off for them, we drop talking about it and get told to 'lick our wounds' and 'hone our message'.

IT'S NOT OUR MESSAGE. IT'S THEIR CRIMINAL MALFEASANCE.

And notice I didn't even mention Russia (this time)

[FreeJoe]

63. Think about it for just a second...

...you are proposing that the President ignore the law and do what he wants. Is this the sort of "law" you want to live under when Trump is about to be President? I'd much rather he be constrained by the law and that we not further the notion that the President can do whatever the hell he wants.