...

means they get their way?

They hate that thing.

It is within their Constitutional authority to hold hearings or not. Don't worry, unless you think Republicans are going to win the general election.

It seems to me that they don't have to confirm, but to say that they won't hold hearings seems to me to violate their duty to give advice and consent to judicial nominees.

no deadline is provided in the Constitution (that I'm aware of.)

so I believe scholars would read a "reasonable" time into the constitution.

If the senate refuses to do their duty to advise/consent, there is no functioning supreme court.

One with six sitting judges. So long as there is one judge on that court, it exists.

The point is, the Senate has a duty to advise and consent in a reasonable time.

Do you really believe the founders would be okay if the court had just one judge? One person with veto power over every law passed by Congress? That is ludicrous and ridiculous, and so is the position that the senate has no duty to advise/consent to the president's nominations in a reasonable amount of time, not delayed for political reasons.

The senate absolutely has a duty to "advise/consent" OR THERE WOULDN'T BE A SUPREME COURT.

Hope it helps.

It is meeting now and hearing cases. There have been many times in SC history where the court operated short handed.

Certainly not the Constitution, the framers didn't include a timeline, not the President, again, the framers didn't give him that power, so who gets to decide what's a reasonable time?

Answer, it would be the party in charge of the Senate, which, at this moment in time, would be the republicans.

As Senators they took an oath on the Bible - which they revere so much -
to faithfully execute their duties in office

Now they're hiding from the consequences of their actions

This stonewalling is a way of voting NO without voting at all

Cowards, liars, perjurers

4-4 defers to the lower courts which we own

Such as the Fifth circuit which has allowed Texas abortion restrictions.

and then go around the country making speeches about their obstructionism.

There is too much contrary precedence for that to be effective.

ours is a whisper campaign about obstructionism

the media won't play ball with the issue

So it's word of mouth

Everyone knows it's true, they just need a reminder

rolling over and playing dead. He needs to behave like a President. Let the Republicans suggest who he should nominate? No. Not nominate anyone at all? No, no, no.

He needs to make sure that people in this country understand to what extent the Republicans are being totally obstructionist, are refusing to do what they were elected to do, and that there is simply no precedent for a sitting President not to nominate a SC replacement, or for the Senate not to consider that nomination.

One of the things that has disappointed me the most about Obama is that he doesn't seem to understand that playing nice with those guys gets him nowhere.

as long as there is no nominee, only the suggestion of one there can be no real objections to that nominee. He can attack the republicans all day long saying they refuse to consider a nominee because obstruction. The second he actually puts someone forward the republicans can claim some actual reason for opposing the nominee, supports abortion or other hot topic for republicans.

The longer it remains generic the longer they can clobber them with pure obstruction.

I am sure the is looking for the nominee that will be hardest to claim a legitimate refusal to consider but that is not an easy task.


The meeting today was simply to put it back out there that republicans refuse to cooperate for no legitimate reason.

But it feels as if all too often he's just let them have their way.

I will put my name into the nomination process------------------------who cares what these jerks think.

And this is just classic.................

"We killed a lot of time talking about basketball and other stuff," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who also attended the White House meeting, along with the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.

They (right wing republicans ) don't want to lose there propaganda machine called the U.S. Supreme Court which started under Rehnquist and now the Roberts court for the last 35 years and look at what this country has gotten...................for example----------------- District of Columbia vs Heller, and attacking workers/unionization efforts, voting (dismantling), attacking the EPA, just for starters

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

I and millions of others want a "LIBERAL" / "PROGRESSIVE" justice on this court for the next thirty five years, were really tired of capitulation


Honk---------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

...to create a huge turnout on election day in their favor...

The Reds believe that God + Guns + Gays + whomever is the Dem nominee = huge turnout.

The hatred on their side is palatable... and they (TPTB) intend to take full advantage of it.

Using their propaganda megaphone squawking relentlessly they are already letting it be known that a "conservative" SCOTUS will save the babies, save the guns, and strip every alternative lifestyle and religion of their rights...

IMO, they see a Republicon victory on election day as a way to solidify the power of their failed ideology over all of us...

Did they even talk about the Supreme Court? Or was it about how they would handle the Trump in the room...

... and make them vote.

And file a lawsuit in Federal Court the next day.

Like "the Senate refuses to follow the Constitution"?

You can sue the Executive Branch, why not the Legislative? Or each individual Senator?

otherwise Obama's just asking the press to make the Senate FEEL BAD for not doing their jerbs.

side note: I think this is your first-ever non-RKBA post! congrats!

I've commented on many other topics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1108&pid=47873

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7650842

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7652046

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1363149

Just a few

Donald Trump.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president can't serve on the Supreme Court at the same time, is there? That way we'd get the greatest president and the greatest Supreme Court we've ever had.

He's 65, so we won't have him forever. He's also libertarian, so of neither Party.