Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

a reply to: CranialSponge

Are you saying they knew that back when they fought Johnson for 9 months over his appointees?

Thing is that a lame duck has no accountability to anyone anywhere in the process. You can look at that in several different ways and it can be either bad or good depending on how you see it.

I see how Obama picks nominees. He looks at whether or not they consider the constitution as written law or malleable to their ideology and then he also picks based on their skin color and victim class status.

Does anyone honestly think Obama would actually appoint someone who is white, particularly if that person happens to be male? ... wait, maybe if that person happens to be gay ...

a reply to: ketsuko

I have a harder time believing that cruz would pick anyone that wasn't far right, conservative christian, fruitcake! wouldn't suprise me if you would pick his father.

a reply to: xuenchen

longest time a seat stayed open and unfilled was under Tyler presidency (before texas was a state) and his sucessor is the one that finally got the seats filled it took close to 2ish years

edit to add it took him that long because he had NO support in senate so i feel this could be one of the more better examples to see how with out senate support getting confirmation is harder then originally planned with no senate support or in lame duck presidental elections.

and just as an aside ,what people are not considering is the anger of low information voters and frusterated republicans who if their reps dont stand now will get NO support ever again from their voters so the republicans are placed between looking like obstructionists by democrats and probally some independets but risk loosing their entire voting base if they appear weak now that they have a majority(narrow as it is)

and in hopes of appearing more open on the topic it only takes 4-5 republicans voting with obama to get an appointment in(4 with biden as tie breaker,5 for narrow victory) so to republicans who feel strongly about this call/email your reps (more so the ones up for contested elections that may feel vulnerable ,and to democrats if you want Obama to pick one email those same vulnerable reps .this election just got 100% more cutthroat and complicated

a reply to: neo96

ok off topic as hell so mods can delete if its too off topic but . things some of the left seems to not like a bout guns have been in existence even before the second amendment or baring that during the time of the founders (countering the "founders could not have foreseen these weapons"
en.wikipedia.org...
1 the gondoli air rifle used by Lewis and Clarke on their expedition was a completely silent(suppressor precedent) semi automatic(scary asult weapon scared the bejesus out of the natives) high caliber rifle(.46?) capable of 12-20 shots (high capacity magazine but non detachable as it was tube fed) with a detachable stock (scary assault weapon feature that contained the air cannister)
en.wikipedia.org...
2. the puckle gun by james puckel an admitted bigot who made square bullets to shoot at Muslims and round ones for Christians was a semi automatic rotary(revolving) cannon with a detachable magazine

3.high powered scope was inveted in 1835(well with in the founders life time)

4.forgrip or an extra grip for rifles to increase accuracy was invented almost at the same time of the gun (see handgonne)

5.first fully automatic rifle did not come into being until 1900 but automatic crossbows come from chinese times(some what of a streach but hey it existed before America by centuries)
en.wikipedia.org...
6.short barreled shotguns/rifles (SBS/SBR on class 3) dates back to ye old pirate/colonial times in the form of the blunder buss or its handgun equivalent dragon and they have been around since 1640s at least.
en.wikipedia.org...
7.grenades/explosives were used in frigging ROMAN times but more commonly attributed to the Chinese (Greeks even had napalm/flame throwers which oddly are not regulated like firearms anyways)

so that should cover that aspect ,more on topic i only see delays being implemented against a new appointee if they can give good enough reasons and at least pretend to consider the appointments suggested by the president ,has sanders stated an opinion on this yet as i would be somewhat interested to see where he stands on this if he would want to wait to possibly get to appoint 3 him self or if he would vote for a confirmation of obamas choices and settle for trying to get his own choices in,this would also apply to clinton as i have not heard her comment on it yet

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It'd be cool if he was just honest about it and said hey look there's no way in hell we're gonna get another conservative Justice right now so we want to wait until we might be able to.

But I suppose that's too direct.

We already have seen how corrupt the Obama appointed SCITUS selections have been, and how they do not uphold constitutional laws, much like some of the conservative ones have done in the past.

So maybe there is some great distrust with Obama choosing them, and the reason for that is black and white and obvious to all.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

give us some examples...???

a reply to: neo96
ment as a reply to the person neo was replying realied my error when trying to post(not directed at neo)
eh you dont have to stop the hell fire missiles or drones have you not studied how civil conflicts go? the first to get killed and drug through the streets naked are the pilots/drone operators/snipers. how many drone opperatiors are gonna go to work after their family's are raped flayed and paraded like trophies through the streets? gadaffi had an army and air force a tank corps and attack helicopters (as well as female security force) how was he killed again? oh yeah drug into the streets stripped naked and shot like a dog by people with rifles and limited formal training while he begged for his life. and

any people serious about attempting a rebellion in usa would focus on military production facilities(drone/bomber/fighter production) focus on hitting soft targets(military schools,depots,fuel pipelines and production facilities water treatment and supply sources ,we keep hearing how vulnerable our infrastructure to low budget ill equipped terrorists if these threats are as real as our gov has been telling us whats to stop a rebel group from poisoning water treatment plants or destroying damns and farm land? with how open Facebook and our internet makes life finding out the info to find out where peoples families live who serve or are loyal to the administration are way easier then in our civil war history.so a drone operator has been hitting milita groups,what happens when he gets off work turns on his pc and sees his wife and children killed in some isis like snuff film and have it uploaded to the internet? not all military live near their families (more so extended aunts uncles nephews etc) (disclaimer i do not advocate these things just going off what ive seen in other conflicts of this nature and how the internet could make it way more complicated)

look at how the insurgency in Iraq Vietnam etc went if you collaborated with the usa the militias kill you and your families often times not even being safe in "green zones" or having their villages wiped out ,civil war are rarely civil and tend to escalate rather quickly ,look at how isis is running things they are enslaving the families of people fighting against them in an attempt to demoralize the armies fighting against them by limiting the breeding capability of their foes (capture their women so they cant breed more troops) its terrible horrible like most things that happen in these kinds of conflicts they also tend to kill quite brutally any pilots they could get their hands on(see Jordanian pilot) in an attempt to break morale and enrage their foes

another factor would be the military as i dont think any one wants to see the military divided and splitting up amongs rebels/loyalists in to juntas but its possible some military units would refuse to fire on citizens hell only 13% of the us population actually fought against the British during the revolutionary war so that did not even require a majority of the population to resist

TLDR superior military tech does not guarantee a victory otherwise we would not have been chased out of korea,removed from Vietnam by the Vietcong,how well are our drones doing at stopping the Taliban? did the German tech give them a victory against the allies? no one seems to ever ponder the true consequences of open rebellion in usa and too many view it as either "well we have more guns then them" or well our military is the bees knees and we could stop any of them in their tracks" funny how goat herders and opium farmers are still actively resisting the most powerful military on the planet and have been for over 10 years now.the answer is never that simple only the Egyptians have seemed to pull this off in recent times having it be MOSTLY peaceful(compared to other internal conflicts) and they did it because they had a good deal of support from their military (less so with the new jaunta) and even then their civilian population was fragmented and suffered great attacks during their multiple removing of dictators

a reply to: dawnstar

that is an aspect of this people aren't paying attention to as much as they should and it will hurt both sides of the isle ,from the sisters as you mentioned to a possible Texas lower court end run on roe v wade (which would be terrible) has any one done a thread to figure out exactly how many cases are now in limbo or which could have unforseen outcomes for each party?

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: dawnstar

that is an aspect of this people aren't paying attention to as much as they should and it will hurt both sides of the isle ,from the sisters as you mentioned to a possible Texas lower court end run on roe v wade (which would be terrible) has any one done a thread to figure out exactly how many cases are now in limbo or which could have unforseen outcomes for each party?

What Happened JUST BEFORE Justice Scalia Died is Raising Some SERIOUS Questions

a reply to: links234

talkingpointsmemo.com... not so sure about that as recent rulings have curtialed that power vastly compared to how it was before

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the president's power to temporarily appoint individuals to government posts, delivering a blow to President Barack Obama and altering the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the Court. The justices held that the Constitution does not permit the president to appointment people to government positions without Senate approval when the chamber is in a pro forma session -- when it gavels in and out once every three days to fulfill a constitutional requirement but does not conduct business. "For purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business," Breyer wrote, observing that the Senate does not define pro forma as a recess. "[W]e conclude that we must give great weight to the Senate’s own determination of when it is and when it is not in session. But our deference to the Senate cannot be absolute." The majority opinion was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The ruling was relatively narrow and could have been much worse for the Obama administration. The other four justices wanted to go further in curtailing the recess appointment power. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the outcome but saying they'd further restrict the president's authority to filling vacancies that arise only during the recess in question. (The majority ruling allows the president to fill slots during a recess regardless of when they were vacated.) "The real tragedy of today’s decision is not simply the abolition of the Constitution’s limits on the recess­ appointment power and the substitution of a novel frame­ work invented by this Court," Scalia wrote. "It is the damage done to our separation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally."

time.com...

The setback for President Obama is unlikely to stem the increasing political debate over the reach of executive power More Ted Cruz Says He Will Filibuster Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination Antonin Scalia’s Open Supreme Court Seat Could Set Record For Vacancy Why the Fight to Replace Antonin Scalia Will Be Ugly Handing a victory to those who fear the executive branch has overreached in recent years, the Supreme Court has reined in the President’s power to appoint officers of the government when Congress is in recess. Weighing competing clauses of the constitution, the justices ruled Thursday that the President cannot circumvent the framers’ requirement that he seek the Senate’s advice and consent on executive branch appointments if Senators are only formally in recess for three days. The ruling undermines hundreds of decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 and for half of 2013, when the board comprised unconfirmed recess appointees. Those decisions will be revisited by the board that has since been confirmed by the Senate. Nominally, the ruling is a win for Republicans who have made Obama’s use of presidential power a central plank of their mid-term election strategy. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican former chair of the Senate Judiciary committee applauded “the Court’s willingness to stand up to President Obama’s flagrantly unconstitutional power grab,” while House Speaker John Boehner called the ruling a “victory for the Constitution, and against President Obama’s aggressive overreach.” In fact, over the years, Republicans presidents have used recess appointments as often as Democrats. In 2013, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that Ronald Reagan had made 232 recess appointments, Bill Clinton had made 139, and George W. Bush had made 171. As of Jan. 2013, Obama had made 32. In that light, the ultimate effect of the Court’s ruling will be a slight shift in power to Congress from the executive branch. Paradoxically, in recent years, Democrats have responded to Republican efforts to block Obama’s appointments by changing Senate rules to streamline the confirmation process. Last fall, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid forced through an ad hoc rule change effectively doing away with filibusters of all presidential appointments, except Supreme Court nominees—a dramatic move that curtailed the Senate minority’s ability to block presidential priorities. Reid said Thursday that thanks to that rule change, “today’s [Supreme Court] ruling will have no effect on our ability to continue ensuring that qualified nominees receive an up-or-down vote.”

the time link explains how bolth sides have tried to use the same tricks before
www.mcclatchydc.com...

The Supreme Court on Thursday modestly curtailed presidents’ power to unilaterally appoint officials while the Senate is in recess. In a defeat for President Barack Obama, and others who will follow him into the White House, the court unanimously ruled that Obama improperly appointed two members to the National Labor Relations Board during an ultra-brief Senate recess. “Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the (Recess Appointments) Clause,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue.” In a separate decision Thursday, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that establishes a buffer zone around abortion clinics. The court still has a key case yet to decide before justices start their summer recess, with a decision pending on whether corporations can claim religious exemptions from the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. The recess appointment decision issued Thursday has been among the court’s most highly anticipated, because of its potential to tilt the balance of power between Congress and the White House. Citing “historical practice,” Breyer said that “a recess of more than three days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short” to allow the president to make a recess appointment. “We add the word ‘presumptively’ to leave open the possibility that some very unusual circumstance—a national catastrophe, for instance, that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response—could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break,” Breyer noted. At the same time, the court’s ruling was narrower than some conservatives had hoped for. Justices stressed that presidents retain authority to appoint officials during longer recesses, and they rejected arguments that would have further limited the vacancies that might be filled. All nine justices agreed that Obama’s two National Labor Relations Board appointments were improper. The court’s four most consistently conservative justices, though, also signed on to an unusually long concurring opinion that argued for stricter limits on the White House. Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

so all 9 justices were in agreement

a reply to: dawnstar

i had originally incorcectly posted that cruz was head of judiciary committee but he is in fact not it is this man www.judiciary.senate.gov... so he is the holder of the keys . i would agree cruz would not be a fan but im not sure he has as much say as i had originally posted about,just felt need to correct my error

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

well, someone piped up and posted a link the guy (or gal) that was my source about the decision of the lower court would be the winner if there was a tie came back on scotus blog and said he may be wrong. they maybe just rehear such cases. I would rather they rehear them that have it just default to the lower court decision.

www.washingtonpost.com... executive overreach is sure not just limited to one party but i think this was the closest we ever got to open rebellion in our life times

President Richard M. Nixon jokingly threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Capitol Hill in March 1974 as Congress was moving to impeach him over the Watergate scandal, according to transcripts of telephone conversations among his closest aides that were released yesterday. "I was told to get the football," White House Chief of Staff Alexander M. Haig Jr. told Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger less than five months before the president's forced resignation, during a conversation in which the two men exchanged stories about Nixon's increasingly erratic behavior. "What do you mean?" asked Kissinger, who had called Haig to express concern that the president might unwittingly unleash a Middle East war with his new, get-tough policy against Israel. "His black nuclear bag," replied Haig. "He is going to drop it on the Hill." The March 20, 1974, exchange is among 20,000 pages of transcripts of telephone conversations that Kissinger deposited in the Library of Congress in 1976 with the stipulation that they remain secret until at least five years after his death. Kissinger turned the transcripts over to the National Archives in February 2002 after being threatened with legal action by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit group that campaigns against government secrecy. The National Archives reviewed the transcripts for national security and privacy purposes and released almost all of them yesterday. The transcripts shed light on the extraordinarily complex relationship between Nixon and Kissinger during a turbulent period in American foreign policy, from the bombing of Cambodia in 1970 to the Yom Kippur war of 1973 and diplomatic breakthroughs with China and the Soviet Union. Even as Kissinger attempted to convince Nixon of his loyalty, he adopted a sardonic tone in conversations with Haig and other aides.

so hey at least obama isnt threating to nuke capitol hill over this and makes bernie sanders comment on kissenger from previous debate look a bit more burn worthy in this light

a reply to: ketsuko

Are you saying they knew that back when they fought Johnson for 9 months over his appointees?

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea how you drew up that thought process from what I posted.


What I'm saying is that McConnell (a republican) is publicly advocating for something that's completely unprecidented. And the only reason why anyone (republican or democrat) would want to push for something unprecidented like that is because they're 100% absolutely confident that it would work in their favour... otherwise, they wouldn't push for it.

Another words, McConnell's party (republican) is 100% positively certain that a republican will be the next president of the United States.

Hence the reason why I said it sounds like McConnell accidentally let the cat out of the bag... the new president has already been chosen, a republican.

Which, of course, come November will give the illusion that 'the people' made that choice (giving "their voice") through the so-called election process.

You don't advocate for something that's constitutionally unprecidented unless you're damn sure of the end results.

Obama has already appointed two liberal loon nutcases to the SCOTUS. That is already way too many. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: ketsuko

Meanwhile, back in 2007, Chuck Schumer said that the Senate should immediately block any more Bush nominees. Granted, that was never tested, as there was not an additional opening on the SC. Meanwhile, I think he's been whining about the Republicans now vowing to do the exact same thing.

'Do as I say, not as I do,' apparently.

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: xuenchen

Sorry Republicans...you cant change the rules in the Fourth Quarter.

What rules? The ones Democrats changed in 1960?
"Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments"
www.washingtonpost.com... ourt-recess-appointments/

Would anyone care to tell the forum when the last time a Democratic Presidential Supreme Court nominee was rejected by the Senate? (Here's a hint: Cleveland. not the city)

And then for fun please look up the last four times a Republican Presidential Supreme Court nominee was rejected by the Senate.

Then please stop all the crybaby chatter about Republicans blocking Supreme Court nominees. Looks like the Dems are due for a few blocked nominees.

a reply to: jjkenobi

You see, though, that's your problem. You expect that the Democrats have to play by the same rules they expect of everyone else. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, its that its always different when a Democrat does it. Always.

If this was February 2008, with GWB in office, and we were talking about replacing Darth Vader Ginsburg rather than Scalia, do you think they'd be all supportive of a potential Bush nominee? Ah, no.

And yes, before someone gets all whiny, the Democrat Senate would be within their rights to block his nominees.

originally posted by: vor78
Ginsburg rather than Scalia, . . .

One died, the other didn't.