• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Logic of John McCain

JackA

JackA

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
2,930
Location
Richmond, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is. And the Senate can go f... itself.
 
I suspect Sen. Harry Reid's "nuclear option" so cheered by leftists is looking less and less attractive. Heaven forbid a Democrat president being forced to nominate a moderate.
 
JackA said:
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is. And the Senate can go f... itself.
Click to expand...

As if Scalia wasn't a partisan hack justice.
 
JackA said:
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is. And the Senate can go f... itself.
Click to expand...

The globalist would go along with Granny if she is elected. That includes McCain.
 
JackA said:
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is And the Senate can go f... itself.
Click to expand...

Without approving Garland, the Supreme Court doesn't exist? Last time I checked, there were 8 Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court.

When Congress first passed the Judiciary Act, it fixed the number at 6 Justices.
 
What a bunch of whiny little bitches.

How republicans aren't ashamed that their leaders are ****ting all over the constitution I'll never know.
 
ocean515 said:
Without approving Garland, the Supreme Court doesn't exist? Last time I checked, there were 8 Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court.

When Congress first passed the Judiciary Act, it fixed the number at 6 Justices.
Click to expand...

If you read the post, the obstruction I meant isn't limited to Garland, who may not even continue as Hillary's nominee. I mean the endless obstruction implied by McCain and Lee.
 
JackA said:
McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent.
Click to expand...

And they'd be right.

You may think it's bad form. It may well be bad politics.

But Constitutionally, there is no "limit" for the Senate to withhold consent. Which is rather the whole point.

What exactly do you think "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are?
 
JackA said:
If you read the post, the obstruction I meant isn't limited to Garland, who may not even continue as Hillary's nominee. I mean the endless obstruction implied by McCain and Lee.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware the Constitution provides a remedy to get around Congress performing it's duty, nor does it establish a time limit on doing so.
 
JackA said:
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is. And the Senate can go f... itself.
Click to expand...

You should not use such biased words as "obstruction", if you want to be taken seriously by those of opposing political opinion. And in this case, I do not even think your word is correct, as the President wants something of the Senate and not vice versa. So it is up to the President to bring a proposal that the Senate can accept and the Senate should certainly not consent to a Justice they don't think acceptable.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm not aware the Constitution provides a remedy to get around Congress performing it's duty, nor does it establish a time limit on doing so.
Click to expand...

The liberals will try defining the words in a new way to circumvent the Constitution. That has been their solution in a number of instances and they will continue till they run into a wall.
 
JackA said:
Yesterday, John McCain said he might be inclined to help Republican senators block any Supreme Court nomination put forward by Hillary Clinton. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said the same thing last week. Both argue that justices appointed by Democrats are politically biased. McCain later backed away from his statement. As far as I know, Lee has not.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise ..."

McCain said and Lee is still saying, in effect, that no limit exists on the Senate's power to withhold consent. If any and all nominations may be blocked during Hillary's first term, they could be blocked again in her second term should she have one or if another Democrat succeeds her, through the successor's Presidency. In other words, the Senate's open ended power to withhold consent could be used to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. Such is the logic of the McCain/Lee argument.

I think what this means is that if the current obstruction holding up the Garland nomination continues into Hillary's term there eventually will come a point when the Court, in order to preserve its existence, will have to rule that the Senate's refusal to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility leaves the Court no choice but to accept the President's appointment as is. And the Senate can go f... itself.
Click to expand...

I think it means that the Republicans in Congress are debating whether to oppose anything and everything that a Democratic president proposes, much like they did when they decided that their main goal was to make Obama a one term president.

That sort of hyper partisanship and inflexibility backfired back in '08, and will backfire again should they decide to go that way.

First blow to the GOP: The Trump campaign. Second, if they choose to do it: lack of willingness to compromise. Let's hope that, should the GOP decide to destroy their party, there is another ready to take over. We don't want a single party system in the US.
 
joG said:
The liberals will try defining the words in a new way to circumvent the Constitution. That has been their solution in a number of instances and they will continue till they run into a wall.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct. They do have a history of redefining words to achieve their larger objective.
 
Harshaw said:
And they'd be right.

You may think it's bad form. It may well be bad politics.

But Constitutionally, there is no "limit" for the Senate to withhold consent. Which is rather the whole point.
Click to expand...

You agree, then, that the Senate has the power to withhold consent indefinitely, even until the last Justice has died or resigned, so that a functioning Court passes out of existence.
 
The Republican Party bet too much on Trump saving them from a moderate-to center-left court in the short term.

They will get their shot eventually, though.
 
JackA said:
You agree, then, that the Senate has the power to withhold consent indefinitely, even until the last Justice has died or resigned, so that a functioning Court passes out of existence.
Click to expand...

I don't "agree"; it's a statement of fact. It's not a question of opinion. The Senate's prerogative to withhold consent is absolute.

It doesn't matter if you think it "should be" or not; it is.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't "agree"; it's a statement of fact. It's not a question of opinion. The Senate's prerogative to withhold consent is absolute.

It doesn't matter if you think it "should be" or not; it is.
Click to expand...

I see that you declare yourself a lawyer but you present yourself dimly in this post. It is certainly a question of opinion as to whether the perogative is without limit.
 
JackA said:
I see that you declare yourself a lawyer but you present yourself dimly in this post. It is certainly a question of opinion as to whether the perogative is without limit.
Click to expand...

I don't "present" myself as a lawyer.

I am correct. That you do not want it to be correct does not make it any less correct.

I'd ask you what you think the limiting principle is, but you've never thought about it beyond "no, that can't be true," so you don't have one.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't "present" myself as a lawyer.

I am correct. That you do not want it to be correct does not make it any less correct.

I'd ask you what you think the limiting principle is, but you've never thought about it beyond "no, that can't be true," so you don't have one.
Click to expand...

If you read the post you might see it is exactly what I thought about. The limiting principle is the permanence of the Court.
 
JackA said:
If you read the post you might see it is exactly what I thought about. The limiting principle is the permanence of the Court.
Click to expand...

OK, if that's your "limiting principle," it's one you pulled entirely out of thin air.

The power to withhold consent is absolute. Again, if you don't like it, too bad -- it is what it is.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, if that's your "limiting principle," it's one you pulled entirely out of thin air.

The power to withhold consent is absolute. Again, if you don't like it, too bad -- it is what it is.
Click to expand...

So, congress has the right to eliminate the Supreme Court by attrition?
 
ocean515 said:
I'm not aware the Constitution provides a remedy to get around Congress performing it's duty, nor does it establish a time limit on doing so.
Click to expand...

So, theoretically, each party could just keep stonewalling through the years until there are no more Justices at all?
 
Deuce said:
So, congress has the right to eliminate the Supreme Court by attrition?
Click to expand...

They are under absolutely no obligation to consent to anyone they don't wish to. Separation of powers.
 
BrewerBob said:
So, theoretically, each party could just keep stonewalling through the years until there are no more Justices at all?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes, they could.
 
Patrickt said:
I suspect Sen. Harry Reid's "nuclear option" so cheered by leftists is looking less and less attractive. Heaven forbid a Democrat president being forced to nominate a moderate.
Click to expand...

Lol. Federal politics don't include any real moderates.

Ps this post was funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom