Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    14 Feb '16 23:19
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is threatening to filibuster ANY Supreme Court nominee made by President Obama, saying “This should be a decision for the people,” Ted Cruz doesn't even know who it is he will be opposing. In addition, Ted Cruz knows full well supreme court nominees are the decision of the President, not the people. This is not a good thing.

    This is a prime example of how deeply divided America's partisanship has become. They will oppose each other, even before they know what it is they are opposing. It is this deep seated division, and not Muslims, Russians, Mexicans or any other group that is the biggest threat to American security.
  2. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65540
    15 Feb '16 02:08
    Originally posted by bill718
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is threatening to filibuster ANY Supreme Court nominee made by President Obama, saying “This should be a decision for the people,” Ted Cruz doesn't even know who it is he will be opposing. In addition, Ted Cruz knows full well supreme court nominees are the decision of the President, not the people. This is not a good thing.

    This is a ...[text shortened]... Muslims, Russians, Mexicans or any other group that is the biggest threat to American security.
    - When the pollies are getting things done they're messing with the lives of citizens.
    - The pollies disagree with each other.
    - They don't manage to get anything done as a result.

    = A win for the citizens.

    This is good news Bill
  3. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    15 Feb '16 02:55
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    - When the pollies are getting things done they're messing with the lives of citizens.
    - The pollies disagree with each other.
    - They don't manage to get anything done as a result.

    = A win for the citizens.

    This is good news Bill
    They don't get anything done...and we're paying them for this? That's NOT a win for the citizens.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '16 03:05
    Elizabeth Warren on her Facebook page:

    The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
    Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
    Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
    Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

    https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/557279941101170


    The Constitution is even clearer:

    he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court

    Article 2, section 2

    There's nothing there saying he "shall" make such appointments ONLY in the first three years of his term.
  5. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65540
    15 Feb '16 03:41
    Originally posted by bill718
    They don't get anything done...and we're paying them for this? That's NOT a win for the citizens.
    Absolutely it is Bill, pay them to do nothing, it's when they start getting bright ideas and implementing them you're going to feel a hand in your pocket.

    Pay them to do nothing, that would be a net gain.
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Feb '16 07:27
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    - When the pollies are getting things done they're messing with the lives of citizens.
    - The pollies disagree with each other.
    - They don't manage to get anything done as a result.

    = A win for the citizens.

    This is good news Bill
    Do you think politicians should be disagreeing and not getting anything done when it comes to organizing the way a society protects against force and fraud?
  7. Joined
    27 Dec '06
    Moves
    6163
    15 Feb '16 07:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Elizabeth Warren on her Facebook page:

    https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/557279941101170


    The Constitution is even clearer:

    he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [b]Judges of the supreme Court


    Article 2, s ...[text shortened]... othing there saying he "shall" make such appointments ONLY in the first three years of his term.[/b]
    You're right, the Constitution is clear:

    ...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...

    The Senate does not have to consent to the President's nominee, and if the People don't like the Senate's tactics they can express their disapproval at the ballot box.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Feb '16 08:04
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    You're right, the Constitution is clear:

    ...by and with the [b]Advice and Consent
    of the Senate...

    The Senate does not have to consent to the President's nominee, and if the People don't like the Senate's tactics they can express their disapproval at the ballot box.[/b]
    Does that mean the president and the Senate have to... (eerie music starts playing in the background)... compromise?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '16 09:31
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    The Senate does not have to consent to the President's nominee, .....
    But my understanding is that a Filibuster is not about not consenting but rather a tactic to stop the senate from consenting. in other words, cheating.
  10. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65540
    15 Feb '16 10:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But my understanding is that a Filibuster is not about not consenting but rather a tactic to stop the senate from consenting. in other words, cheating.
    Don't blame the player, blame the game.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '16 11:15
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Don't blame the player, blame the game.
    I'll blame both in this case.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '16 11:191 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But my understanding is that a Filibuster is not about not consenting but rather a tactic to stop the senate from consenting. in other words, cheating.
    Indeed, kind of like passing Obamacare with Reconciliation.

    The nation is a post Constitutional Republic. It then makes us wonder what exactly will happen next.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    15 Feb '16 13:40
    Originally posted by bill718
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is threatening to filibuster ANY Supreme Court nominee made by President Obama, saying “This should be a decision for the people,” Ted Cruz doesn't even know who it is he will be opposing. In addition, Ted Cruz knows full well supreme court nominees are the decision of the President, not the people. This is not a good thing.

    This is a ...[text shortened]... Muslims, Russians, Mexicans or any other group that is the biggest threat to American security.
    It seems to me that filibusters should be tortured for the exact length of time they speak.

    Really. It's a bloody outrage that policy can be stopped by someone talking bollocks.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Feb '16 15:05
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It seems to me that filibusters should be tortured for the exact length of time they speak.

    Really. It's a bloody outrage that policy can be stopped by someone talking bollocks.
    It's What The Founders Would Have Wanted.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '16 15:12
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    You're right, the Constitution is clear:

    ...by and with the [b]Advice and Consent
    of the Senate...

    The Senate does not have to consent to the President's nominee, and if the People don't like the Senate's tactics they can express their disapproval at the ballot box.[/b]
    Did you miss the "Advice" part?

    Refusing, in advance, to even consider the President's nominee is hardly in keeping with the letter of the Constitution. No Senate has ever done so in the history of the Republic.

    As I said, the proper way this should be dealt with would be finding a conservative Democrat or moderate Republican judge acceptable to the Senate. The precedent the Republicans seem intent on setting could very well lead to the SCOTUS having vacancies for as long as the President and 41 members of the Senate are of a different political party. This is hardly in keeping with the Framers' intent.
Back to Top