ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE INDIANS...
Let's see, now.
After the loss of one Supreme Court justice, there is left only eight. And yesterday I heard a guy pontificating that we have to have nine. That we have always had nine.
And he is supposedly a learned person. One who has no facts based in reality.
The Constitution assigns responsibility for establishment of a Supreme Court to the Congress. It does not specify the number which must be to compose a Supreme Court. The Constitution wisely leaves that n umber up to the Congress. Sure, the President must approve any bill to change the number, but the bill must originate in the Congress and be approved by Congress before the President gets his/her shot at it.
History? Over the course of it's existence, the Supreme Court has been composed of as few as four and as many as twelve.
The last time it was attempted to change the number of justices was way back in FDR's administration, when he tried to pack the court. He failed miserably.
Under the 'advise and consent' rule, the President has the responsibility to appoint a nominee for the court. The Senate then has the responsibility to 'advise and consent', more correctly in parlance the advise or consent" rule, for the Senate can advise the President his choice is not advisable or, contrariwise, to consent to the nomination. Neither the President nor the Senate is under any time constraints.
Past practice has been for the President to not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court during a year in which a presidential election is held, but this is simply a practice and not a law that must be adhered to.
The Democrats insist now that the president MUST appoint someone and the Senate MUST either approve or disapprove quickly. The Republicans insist the Democrats are wrong on both counts. The Republicans in this case are correct. The Republicans seem to be split - some insist that the president can make an appointment and the Senate can either sit on its thumbs or take up the appointment and deny it. They are CORRECT also. But some insist that based upon prior practice, the president should sit on his thumbs and do nothing. I do not think that is correct, as there are no prohibitions on the president about the time needed or used to make appointments.
The Democrats insist the Senate must take up any such appointment the president may make. They are completely wrong in that insistence. I would refer them to Senator Schumer of their own party, back in 2007, who then proclaimed loudly and clearly that the Senate at that time would not take up discussion of any Supreme Court appointments the then president G. W. Bush might make in 2007 or 2008.
Similar to the protests certain Republicans are making now.
Paybacks are hell, aint they?
After the loss of one Supreme Court justice, there is left only eight. And yesterday I heard a guy pontificating that we have to have nine. That we have always had nine.
And he is supposedly a learned person. One who has no facts based in reality.
The Constitution assigns responsibility for establishment of a Supreme Court to the Congress. It does not specify the number which must be to compose a Supreme Court. The Constitution wisely leaves that n umber up to the Congress. Sure, the President must approve any bill to change the number, but the bill must originate in the Congress and be approved by Congress before the President gets his/her shot at it.
History? Over the course of it's existence, the Supreme Court has been composed of as few as four and as many as twelve.
The last time it was attempted to change the number of justices was way back in FDR's administration, when he tried to pack the court. He failed miserably.
Under the 'advise and consent' rule, the President has the responsibility to appoint a nominee for the court. The Senate then has the responsibility to 'advise and consent', more correctly in parlance the advise or consent" rule, for the Senate can advise the President his choice is not advisable or, contrariwise, to consent to the nomination. Neither the President nor the Senate is under any time constraints.
Past practice has been for the President to not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court during a year in which a presidential election is held, but this is simply a practice and not a law that must be adhered to.
The Democrats insist now that the president MUST appoint someone and the Senate MUST either approve or disapprove quickly. The Republicans insist the Democrats are wrong on both counts. The Republicans in this case are correct. The Republicans seem to be split - some insist that the president can make an appointment and the Senate can either sit on its thumbs or take up the appointment and deny it. They are CORRECT also. But some insist that based upon prior practice, the president should sit on his thumbs and do nothing. I do not think that is correct, as there are no prohibitions on the president about the time needed or used to make appointments.
The Democrats insist the Senate must take up any such appointment the president may make. They are completely wrong in that insistence. I would refer them to Senator Schumer of their own party, back in 2007, who then proclaimed loudly and clearly that the Senate at that time would not take up discussion of any Supreme Court appointments the then president G. W. Bush might make in 2007 or 2008.
Similar to the protests certain Republicans are making now.
Paybacks are hell, aint they?
posted by tanstaafl | 2:41 PM
1 Comments:
Oh, yeah, it has now come to light that our current vice-president, Joe Biden, while sitting as a senator in 1992, said the same thing Schumer did--but now disavows that he said it, or at least that that is not what he meant. Trying to walk it back 24 years later ism tough, aint it, Joe?
Post a Comment
<< Home