President Obama And The Morphing Constitution
[guest post by Dana]
No fixed meaning:
The Constitution of the United States says whoever’s president, if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy, they should nominate somebody. That’s what I’ve done. I’ve carried out my Constitutional duty. The Constitution then says that it’s up to the Senate to advise and consent, to which over the last, uh, several decades has meant that you uh, meet with the guy or gal, find out whether they’re qualified, have a public hearing so all Americans can assess whether this person has the temperament, and the intellect and the judgment to be a good Supreme Court justice. And then you have a vote.
I’m reminded of this:
The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
(H/T NRO)
–Dana
“Constitutional scholar.”
Dana (0ee61a) — 5/17/2016 @ 6:38 pmMiguel Estrada says hello.
Bugg (3ae93d) — 5/17/2016 @ 6:46 pmBarack Obama said that the Stimulus would keep unemployment under 6%, he said that ObamaCare would save American families about $2500 dollars per year, he said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, and he said the attack on Benghazi was caused by a video tape.
Barack Obama’s words aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
ropelight (a24807) — 5/17/2016 @ 6:50 pmPartial-birth pee-stank will appoint the good justices. #nevertrump
happyfeet (831175) — 5/17/2016 @ 6:52 pmTrump’s “suggestions” aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit either. #Twinning!
JD (b70a8e) — 5/17/2016 @ 6:55 pmTrump is a bigger liar than Obama.
Trump is a bigger narcissist than Obama.
Trump is a bigger thug than Obama.
Trump is less informed on international issues than Obama.
Trump is less familiar with the Constitution than Obama.
And Obama is the worst president this country has ever had.
John Hitchcock (2f599c) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:01 pmare we still pretending that the critical legal studies obama lectured on, were just coincidental?
narciso (732bc0) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:03 pmI’m waiting for someone on the Democratic side to claim that the “consent” clause means they can’t say “no”. They’re required to consent, you know?
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:07 pmCheap
SunglassesDem AssesWhen he wakes up in the morning and the light it hurts his head
The first thing he do when he get up out of bed
Is get that mouth a-runnin’, put one over on the masses
And go get hisself some fanboy asses
Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah
Think he wanna little bike ride dreamt about it all night
In his silly Mom Jeans and his helmet kinda tight
He has a Gold Coast strut that was sweet as corn syrup
But he looked pretty silly using pedals with the stirrups
Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah
Now, he goes out and gets hisself a candidate
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:17 pmA partner in crime and we all know her name
Now the choice is up to you ’cause they come in two classes
Gotta make the hard choice or sit home on yer asses
Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah
Sorry, Dana. There is nothing to fault in Obama’s statement. The Senate determines the Rules of its Proccedings, according to Article I, and that includes how it advises and consents. And it can change them from time to time. No “morphing Constitution” aspect to it.
We can quibble whether three and a half decades is “several”, I suppose, because since the time of Reagan (as I remember, it may be longer) the procedure has been as described by Obama. The nominees meet privately with key Senators; the Judiciary Committee holds public hearings; and there is a floor vote.
nk (dbc370) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:18 pmWe are supposed to believe a lying constitutional “professor” who doesn’t ‘t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
Jim (016302) — 5/17/2016 @ 7:49 pmWe can quibble whether three and a half decades is “several”, I suppose, because since the time of Reagan (as I remember, it may be longer) the procedure has been as described by Obama. The nominees meet privately with key Senators; the Judiciary Committee holds public hearings; and there is a floor vote.
I think that most of us recognize that it was a tactical mistake for the GOP to announce that an Obama nominee would not get a vote. It would have been far better to remain silent, then when Obama issued his nomination (his first choice probably would have been even farther left than Garland) McConnell and Grassley could have simply said, “Gee, the calendar is really compressed this election year and I don’t think we’ll get around to holding hearings. We had better just wait until the next Congress is seated.” That would have been a cynical move, of course, and the NYTimes and WaPo editorial boards would have wet their collective pants, but I think the vast majority of the American people would have just shrugged their shoulders and moved on.
JVW (eabb2a) — 5/17/2016 @ 8:02 pmSteven, we already have violent felons suing in Federal Court claiming no vote by Congress “waives” advise and consent.
SPQR (a3a747) — 5/17/2016 @ 8:08 pmno, they openly declared this as an objective in 1992, this is when they first kept judge hanen off the bench, biden obama schumer, practice smashmouth politics, and then have their stenographers deny it,
narciso (732bc0) — 5/17/2016 @ 8:12 pmNk,
you can cynically claim that is the case for the Supreme Court, but not for the courts as a hole. Miguel Estrada among others ring a bell?
The advise and consent aspect doesn’t differentiate between the courts.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 5/17/2016 @ 9:54 pmYou don’t need to go back to Estrada. Look how Reid changed the filibuster rule to pack the DC Court of Appeals with Obama’s appointees. But Obama said: “The Constitution of the United States says whoever’s president, if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy ….”
The rules are different for the lower courts. Except for the DC Circuit, one Senator from the State of a District Court Judge or from the Circuit of a Court of Appeals Judge can block the appointment by the exercise of Senatorial privilege.
If it’s cynical, it’s not my cynicism. I do not make the rules. The Senate makes them, the Senate changes them.
nk (dbc370) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:12 pmThink about the ramifications of that second rule. No appointment by Bush to the District Courts of California or to the Ninth Circuit could have been made without both Boxer’s and Feinstein’s consent; and no appointment by Obama to the District Court of Texas or to the Fifth Circuit can be made without Cruz’s consent.
nk (dbc370) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:17 pmHe should read about President Tyler’s TWO vacancies and the way the Senate absolutely dissed him for most of his term.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:34 pm… block the appointment by the exercise of Senatorial privilege.
Back in the day when Senators answered to their states directly this made a lot of sense.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:36 pmCan a Navada Senator block a 8th circuit jurist?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:37 pmNevada is in the Ninth Circuit but possibly? Although that would be termed courtesy not privilege?
nk (dbc370) — 5/17/2016 @ 10:50 pmI may be giving “them” too much credit for straightforwardness as it is: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/senate-republicans-block-obama-judge-nominations (yeah, yeah, I know but it has some nice tidbits about the process)
“Even when Republican senators appears to support a nominee, they’ve dragged out the process. Sen. Marco Rubio, for example, recommended Mary Flores to the White House for a spot on a Florida district court, but has been withholding his so-called “blue slip” approval form, preventing her from moving forward to a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. (He says he is still reviewing her qualifications.)” (emphasis mine)
nk (dbc370) — 5/17/2016 @ 11:06 pmHell, Obama could knock down the Washington monument, bulldoze the Vietnam Memorial Wall and crush the Lincoln memorial to pieces and the msm and the republican hacks would applaud. Republicans are gutless cowards.
mg (31009b) — 5/18/2016 @ 2:49 amWe’ve been reading the wrong sites. We should read the leftie sites if we want to like the GOP:
Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?”
“On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”
nk (dbc370) — 5/18/2016 @ 5:27 amBen Rhodes wasn’t trolling the media when he bragged about lying. The Republicans knew it when they were lying to them. And not one called Obama on it.
I will lay money on it. Ben Rhodes was the source who called Netanyahu chickensh*t. It’s how they roll. They like rubbing it people’s faces that they can get away with lying. How many times have commented about the intelligence insulting quality of the lies? It wasn’t just me. Lots of people noticed.
Now they’re daring people to call them what they are.
I get that part of Trump’s appeal.
Steve57 (eca648) — 5/18/2016 @ 5:45 amReview democrats and NJ Supreme Court.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 5/18/2016 @ 8:51 amObama sounds and acts like every tin pot dictator from a third world country. Our problem is
Bar Sinister (c62a89) — 5/18/2016 @ 12:57 pmthat he is President of this one.
Nevada is in the Ninth Circuit but possibly? Although that would be termed courtesy not privilege?
Yes. Typo. I saw it and fixed it but evidently with the same typo.
The point being that the Circuit courts mentioned are physically in the states of the named Senators, but cover other states as well. I would think that any Senator from the left coast, Nevada or Arizona could block a 9th Circuit appellate judge, but given the ideological lopsidedness of the 9th Circuit, they all seem remiss if that’s so.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/18/2016 @ 6:03 pm