Republican talk of holding a Supreme Court seat vacant for four years is without prec

If the Dems take the Senate, that won't happen. All the Dems will need is a simple majority and they can recess and then Clinton can appoint anyone she wants.

 

Sorry, new law does not trump the Constitution. Congress has the right to advise and consent. If they don't consent, there is no new member to SCOTUS. In fact, congress could change the number to 6 if they wanted to and there would be nothing POTUS could do about it except veto. Or they could simply not fund a ninth justice.

 

Clinton will win.

 

The Trump phenomenon represents the will of The People, against the wishes of the entrenched party. He has ridden this wave of "dissatisfaction with the status quo" to victory over 15 establishment challengers in spite of every effort of his party to sandbag his nomination. The People have spoken, as the founders intended, for better or for worse. He has already given control back to The People in his party.

The democratic constituency, on the other hand, have completely lost control of their party. They never had any choice, and never had any say in the matter, and their votes were meaningless because the conclusion wass foregone. The democrats need a Trump too (just not THIS trump).

 

He's a pro-government pick. He was intended to be a moderate who will rubberstamp whatever the federal government wants to do. Personally, as a conservative, I would rather have a full blown liberal justice than a moderate pro-government one. At least the liberal will be a check on the executive and legislative branches sometimes.

 

Federal law states that there have to be nine justices. To change that would require a change in the law (which of course can be done). Personally, I believe that the Senate should vote Garland down. He's the worst possible candidate--almost totally pro-government. I'd rather have a staunch liberal than a pro-government moderate in the SCOTUS. At least the liberal will sometimes vote for liberty. The moderate pro-government one won't.

 

Congress is free to appoint as many or as few SCJ's as it sees fit


http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

 

That same law states they have a quorum with just six justices. So a vacancy doesn't present a legal emergency of any kind.

 

I didn't say it was a legal emergency. However, the Constitution requires advice and consent. I think they need to vote on Garland, up or down. I don't believe in all of these shenanigans. Democrats do this kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*), not Constitutional conservatives. Vote him down, and make Obama select a new one. If he's not conservative, vote the next one down.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but they have to pass a law to do so.

 

So, if new law does not trump the Constitution, then you would support Hillary Clinton appointing 5 new justices during her first term? The Constitution, as I believe you stated at one point, doesn't set a minimum or maximum on the number of justices. Conceivably, a Clinton presidency, with the support of a Democratic party majority in Congress could appoint as many as they want. Or now do you think that we should follow the current law on the matter?

 

If they win the majority in Congress, then they would just write new law, and as long as it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, it would be legal.

My point, was that a new law can not require that congress act. They can set limits, or no limits, but they can not pass a law that requires a time limit on when they confirm a nominee. Just as it is Congress's prerogative to declare when it is and is not in session, it is their prerogative as to when they advise and consent. There is no time table.

 

There are reasons as to why there is a law that was passed by Congress to set the number of SCOTUS justices. It is more or less an agreement that decreases the likelihood of a President "packing" the Court.

Republicans are setting yet another dangerous precedent that may very well be turned against them at which point they will claim that THEY are the aggrieved party when in fact they have opened the door for punitive reactions by the opposing party.

One of the first things that the Democratic Party Senate should do is to change the rules on judicial appointees. This would include removing blocks and filibusters and would help clear out some of the backlog of judicial appointees that the Republicans have deliberately allowed to accumulate with the hope that the next president will be Republican.

The Republicans are playing hardball; they shouldn't act surprised if they get beaned by a fast ball.

 

Any 6 justices constitutes a quorum, so there's no rush to fill the spot.

- - - Updated - - -

You can try again in 2020.

 

Oh man, I was looking forward to the Republicans eating crow once they lost the Presidency to Hillary Clinton. So, instead of having a nice moderate on the court they get a liberal.

Oh but some here are suggesting that we reduce the number of supreme court justices. Shall we just reduce the number of seats every time a justice dies while Hillary Clinton is in office? Shall we, if Democrats just keep winning the presidency, take that all the way and just let the justices all die until there's no one left??? Shall we make it so that there's no courts to rule legislation unconstitutional??? Shall the President just have to veto all legislation until the nightmare ends???

 

Where have you been? Harry Reid already did that.

 

So what if they don't approve Clinton nominees if she gets to make any? Entirely constitutional.

 

Republicans need to stop being petty and take part in the process. They are putting party before country here and they are going to regret not taking Obama's pick if Clinton wins

 

A new law would require the signature of the current President. Do you really think that President Hillary Clinton would sign that type of legislation?

 

That is incorrect. By preventing Hillary from nominating a single person to the Supreme Court, the Republicans are saving the country.

The Democrats always nominate justices who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.

Future generations will look upon today's Republicans as heroes if they succeed in blocking all of Hillary's nominees.

If this guy is confirmed under a Hillary Administration, it will be no different than if he had been confirmed under Obama. If he is not confirmed at all, we'll have saved the country.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy won't become any more liberal just because he was confirmed under Hillary. If he is confirmed under Hillary.

Whatever it takes to prevent the Democrats from stacking the Supreme Court full of justices who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.

- - - Updated - - -

That door is already open. And it was the Democrats who opened it. If the Republicans manage to block all of Hillary's nominees, they will be strolling through a door that the Democrats have already blasted wide open.

That said, "who started it" isn't very important right now. America is backed up against the wall here, and the Republicans are the only ones who can protect the country from the Democrats.

If the Republicans manage to prevent the Democrats from nominating justices who will maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated, they will have saved the country.

 

Until the Supreme Court is confirmed by the Senate, the specific senators who don't confirm should have no pay, no benefits, no health insurance, and no expense payments including franking and all the other bennies these worthless losers refuse to work while they don't work.!

 

Biden Rule = No Lame Duck Appointments to the lifelong Supreme Court.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: = Failed Political Pundit.

“In recent years she’s hinted that part of her retirement calculation depended upon the fact that a Democrat would succeed President Barack Obama.”

Failed!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-failed-political-pundit/index.html

 

Unless you're 30 to 40 years old you may never see it. Trump could replace up to 4 Justices.

 

It may be a precedent but hardly illegal.

 

Its perfectly legal but at this point what difference does it make ? The Reps will not hold up Trumps appointments. Besides congress controls how many justices there are, there is no set number in the constitution

 

What makes you think so? I happen to believe the Republican electorate has sent a message to Republicans that they gave them both houses and the Presidency and will certainly make sure they(people) will vote them out if they don't do as their constituents ask. And if you've studied politics the first job of a politician is to be re-elected. McConnell and Ryan have already said they would work with Trump.