Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy didn't Dems take McTurtle's refusal to fill Scalia's SC seat to court?
Just wondering if this was even a possibility. Maybe if we had done it, we would have a SCOTUS majority.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 846 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why didn't Dems take McTurtle's refusal to fill Scalia's SC seat to court? (Original Post)
MoonRiver
Feb 2018
OP
The Constitution was followed. It requires the appointment to have the Senate's consent...
PoliticAverse
Feb 2018
#6
They have the right to advise and consent...and it would be an equal branch issue.
Demsrule86
Feb 2018
#8
Because it was political hardball, not an unconstitutional action. Someone asked...
PoliticAverse
Feb 2018
#3
And it pissed a lot of people off but not enough to take the Presidency, Senate or House...
PoliticAverse
Feb 2018
#7
Demsrule86
(68,703 posts)1. Advise and consent...it was not possible.
Legally what's the issue with following the constitution on this?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)6. The Constitution was followed. It requires the appointment to have the Senate's consent...
to be valid and the Senate didn't consent.
Demsrule86
(68,703 posts)8. They have the right to advise and consent...and it would be an equal branch issue.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)3. Because it was political hardball, not an unconstitutional action. Someone asked...
Ruth Bader Ginsberg about the issue and she pointed out that even if the Supreme Court
found some reason to force them to vote, they could just vote no.
"If the Senate doesn't act, and the Senate is not acting, what can be done about it?" she said. "Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? 'Well, you want us to vote, so we'll vote no.'"
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)5. Obama was simply asking that his candidate have a Senate hearing.
Confirmations are, of course, not automatic. Turtle played hardball and we let him get away with it.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)7. And it pissed a lot of people off but not enough to take the Presidency, Senate or House...
away from the Republicans.
winetourdriver01
(1,154 posts)4. Why?
I know, that one should have put people in the streets. The right would have gone bananas if a Dem had been responsible for something like that.