McConnell vows Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg will get Senate vote, setting up historic fight

What would you suggest?

 

Let's annex Canada.

 

Trump, in particular, might consider getting a Coronary CT Angiogram.

Could happen if Biden wins.

 

It's literally hardwired into the Constitution that DC can't be a State. I doubt you'd find 38 States to approve changing that. And PR only seems interested in Statehood when they need money.

 

You should review how many votes it takes in the Senate to remove an impeached president. Hint: It's more than 51.

 

A joint Senate committee with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans comes up with a list of potential Justices, and both sides agree to only consider a Presidential selection from the list.

 

The president nominates. He has no constitutional requirement to take a list from the Senate.

 

The idea here is to control the senate confirmation process via senate rules. He can nominate who ever he wants, but senate rules preclude consideration of the nomination unless the nominee fits specific criteria established in Senate rule. He ends up wasting his time.

 

You are correct... I forget how many votes there take a simple majority, 60, or 2/3rds....

Well, it was a poor hypothetical anyway, based on the current state level RCP polling...

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution states:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States."​

An interesting problem.

 

Trust is only one of the problems.

 

Indeed. Why I added the kicker (see above).

 

No one prevented The Obama from nominating a justice.

 

You didn't answer the question.
I'll re-ask:
Why do you have an issue with he GOP doing the same thing the Democrats do?

 

Ah. You're unaware that the GOP is using the Democrat's tricks against them.
Not sure how that can be, but...

 

Why would anyone agree to that? one side will have a majority, one side won't....moreover it undermines the Constitution and is a violation of seperation of powers, because the President is the one that nominates and comes up with the name

 

Non sequitur.

No. Two are finally playing this game.

And it pisses you off - how DARE the GOP do to the Dems what the Dems would do to the GOP, given the opportunity!!!!

 

They never do.
It stems from their assumption that they will always be in power.

 

Irrelevant to the fact the statement that Obama wasn't allowed to nominate someone is utterly and demonstrably false.

 

There's no need to confirm prior to the election,.
In fact, confirming AFTER the election is preferable, as it gives cover to any senators that feel vulnerable.

No one will care.
Except the Democrats, of course.
And they already hate everything the GOP does.

 

It demonstrates the claim you made, while true does, not tell the full story.
Thus, caveat.
Did you think no one would check, or did you not check and get caught?

 

You can try and equate every time the D's did something to the R's to THIS situation, but you'll fail every time. Garland was an historic break with any semblance of fairness and a SCOTUS pick now would be just as bad.

In the theatre of the SCOTUS, the D's retain the high ground. In fact, in the last 3.5 years of approving patently unqualified federal judges (not all, but many), the R's retain the low ground in perpetuity and I suspect it will come at a very high cost sooner than you might like.

 

The USSC cannot force the Senate to do anything - separation of powers.
The constitution says the Senate, like the house, gets to make its own rules and procedures.

 

Especially if he is re-elected afterwards.

 

We are told, every day, by any number of partisan shills, that Biden will win, and the Dems will take the senate.
Are they wrong?