Discussion: Judiciary GOPers Sign Letter Saying They Won't Hold Hearing For Obama Nom

TPM Article Topics
21

The First Monday in October comes before Second Tuesday in November.

This is going to bite them in the ass.

2 Likes
22

If they don’t want to do their job then they shouldn’t be paid.

6 Likes
23

Yes, attorneys will be scrambling to expend time, money and resources on that gambit. I’m sure the contingency fees alone have them drooling.

1 Like
24

The Kim-Davis-ization of the GOP continues apace: “Pay me and give me choice bennies, but I can’t do my job cuz CONSERVATIVE VALUES!!”

9 Likes
25

the power to “withhold”

No such power exists in the Constitution however Section II does state:

he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer…upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices

I would think it is only fair each Senator state his case in writing and submit it to the President.

4 Likes
26

A few dozen form letters, signed by auto-pen, stating “I decline at this time to consider your SCOTUS nominee for reasons that shall remain private.” would suffice to dispense with all this drama.

1 Like
27

This really harkens back to the distant, more innocent past of summer 2015 when the entire GOP rallied around the ideal of taking the politics out of justice when a certain county clerk was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, or anyone, in (political) protest to the Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the same.

1 Like
28

There is no constitutional crisis until Obama presents a nominee. This is all saber-rattling and has no merit until the nominee is named.

What SHOULD happen next is a little schooling by Justice Roberts and a reading of Article 2 and the section pertaining to this situation, pointing out there are no conditional clauses in the writing. Shall means shall - no exceptions, no conditions, no wishing.

For right now, this is red meat to the base. The fact that the GOP’ers coming out of the session made it very clear that they expect no repercussions of this discussion is discouraging because it means we have a completely treasonous section of the legislative body and they should technically all be arrested and jailed if they implement this position.

Of course it will never happen. Nobody cares. No repercussions. And, dollars to donuts, the GOP will retain the Senate, and the House because nobody cares enough to say ‘Enough’.

2 Likes
29

" Lets ‘shut it down’" – " Stop everything" – " Put the brakes on" –

oh … Mr. McConnell … when’s our next recess ? ?

30

“Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protest the will of the American people…”

Huh?

Is this a transcription error or did I really just read that they are standing on the necessity to protest the will of the American people?

Come on TPM, proof your fucking work.

3 Likes
31

Keep yer hopes up Becca — I… for one… do —

32

I was wondering about the possibility of that, but I don’t think the court can make the senate take action. It might mean something to get each Justice on record for what they think about arbitrarily trying to usurp the executive authority, but I doubt it means anything to the traitors.

1 Like
33

How does a “mandate” force these Senators to comply?

Hint: It doesn’t.

34

I thought the same exact thing! is it a typo, or a Freudian slip, maybe? accidentally telling the truth?

2 Likes
35

TPM typo. Same thing leapt out at me as well.

1 Like
36

Fine…be careful you stupid FKs…If you think I would ever vote for or even LISTEN to jerk offs that don’t follow the Constitution because they are butt hurt you better think again.

37

Exactly. Don’t you love if when the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee can’t even accurately repeat what the fucking Constitution mandates and actually says?

1 Like
38

Of course if Hillary is elected she will be refused hearings on nominees also. Because Benghazi.

2 Likes
39

It doesn’t have to. The number is set by law and must be altered by law. Since the court can still nominally function with less members, there is no strict timeline for how long the court can operate with fewer members, but it would not be correct to claim that the position never has to be filled.

2 Likes
40

There is a huge difference between refusing to allow a specific justice nominee to take office, and refusing to even participate in the congressional duty to “advise and consent” on any justice nomination. The first is perfectly legal, and a valid exercise of the duty of congress. The second is a refusal to perform a duty that the constitution says congress has to perform. The constitution does give the president the authority to call congress into session when there is a duty they are required to perform. Perhaps that call to duty should be timed to prevent the senators from campaigning?

10 Likes