4 ms·

It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. Wh

It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.

kennywinker 6y ago
If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party? This is the next logical step.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?
nscalf 6y ago
It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.
- refurb 6y ago
  Following the constitution is “bad faith”?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    But they didn't follow it. They had no duty to consent, but they had a duty to advise, even if in the negative.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Doing things that are so obviously destructive to the whole institution of government that the Founders thought it wasn't worth writing down in the era of quill pens on sheepskins, because they couldn't imagine anyone being evil enough to do it? Yes, that's what bad faith is. It's things you can technically create a justification for that contradict all decency.
robotresearcher 6y ago
The Senate, not congress. "[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the [...] Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court" https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Yes and there is tons of case law on what the Senate actually needs to do and the result is "fuck all". The Federal government is designed to gridlock rather then forcing things to happen.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
aatharuv 6y ago
No, what happened is that Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a vote, and even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to vote for the centrist proposed by Obama.

kennywinker 6y ago

If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?

rootusrootus 6y ago
> Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party? This is the next logical step.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ribosometronome 6y ago
Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?

nscalf 6y ago

It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.

refurb 6y ago
Following the constitution is “bad faith”?
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  But they didn't follow it. They had no duty to consent, but they had a duty to advise, even if in the negative.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Doing things that are so obviously destructive to the whole institution of government that the Founders thought it wasn't worth writing down in the era of quill pens on sheepskins, because they couldn't imagine anyone being evil enough to do it? Yes, that's what bad faith is. It's things you can technically create a justification for that contradict all decency.

robotresearcher 6y ago

The Senate, not congress. "[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the [...] Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court" https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Yes and there is tons of case law on what the Senate actually needs to do and the result is "fuck all". The Federal government is designed to gridlock rather then forcing things to happen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

aatharuv 6y ago

No, what happened is that Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a vote, and even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to vote for the centrist proposed by Obama.