I specifically remember watching Wisconsin taking a vote to abolish unions without

[Maraya1969]

the Democrats who had left the state specifically to stop the vote. What the republicans did was illegal and unconstitutional and yet they got away with it. I am speaking of a different situation where the senate has not fulfilled their duties, (regarding the Merritt Garland nomination) and the possible remedies for that non-action.



EDIT to add that I found the law that they ignored in a NPR article

"Republicans hold a 19-14 majority in the state Senate, but they need at least one Democrat to be present before taking a vote on the bill."


http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote

The WI senate took the vote anyway, while one of the members was reading aloud about the illegality of it! They just ignored that and voted anyway. And that vote took and no one fought about the illegality of it afterward


Can anyone find this video? It may have been on a live feed. I've looked but found nothing


Also, there are others who agree with me that the president has the right constitutionally to appoint a Supreme court judge if the Senate refuses to act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.a821fc065048


Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

"The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint .?.?. Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “?‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’?”



The reason is this thread where every keep telling me that the president cannot appoint a Supreme Court justice without the consent and advise of the senate. I say that they have given their advise and consent by ignoring it and refusing to vote on it. It may be a stretch but if someone can find that video of those WI state reps voting illegally to abolish unions it will show that republicans do this shit all the time and why the hell can't we? This Supreme Court appointment is so vital considering what can happen in the next 4 years I believe certain rules need to be viewed at a different angle.

If the interpretation of the constitution may not be that a stone walled senate gives permission for the president to appoint the nominee then let the 2017 supreme court vote on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8392563

EDIT - I have ADD and when I don't take my medicine for a while I write things that are obviously not clear and give the wrong impression. I apologize. Please bear with me. BUT I must add that my ideas are not new or different from others much more qualified than me. I may have not explained them as clearly as I could but nevertheless they are founded on good principle.

I am trying to make the point that the new 2017 Supreme court will immediately be broken down if President Obama cannot appoint Merrick Garland because trump will put up some narcissist and the republicans will immediately confirm him. Therefore I think in these unusual and dangerous circumstance that the constitution can and should be viewed from a different angle. Even if they can remove the justice after 2017 it will create a problem for them and stall them from appointment another justice.

[global1]

1. A 2017 SCOTUS That Is Stacked In Favor Of Those That Want To Abolish Unions?....nt

[Maraya1969]

2. No, I was talking about them ignoring the law and getting away with it. Instead of us namby

pamby democrats who always follow the law and get run over repeatedly

[unblock]

3. even if we could do this somehow, what do you think would happen next?

that kind of precedent in republicans hands? no thank you.

[former9thward]

4. The reason they needed a Democrat was because the bill contained money measures.

Money measures need a quorum and one Democrat is needed for a quorum. When the Democrats fled the state the Republicans stripped out the money parts of the bill and thus could legally pass the bill. After they did the Democrats came back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10

[Maraya1969]

5. Here are some other things republicans have done with no regard to law or norm

And that’s the real point. Republicans have absolutely no problem breaking any norm in their path to power. They turned the filibuster from a seldom-used tool to a routine exercise. Tom DeLay saw advantage in doing a second redistricting in Texas in 2003 to pick up extra GOP seats, even though states normally redistrict every 10 years; he succeeded. Congress typically passes the debt limit without comment, but Republicans took the country to the brink of its first default, extracting concessions in the process. A minority of the Senate prevented the confirmation for years of any director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau simply because they didn’t like the agency. The opposition party would never attempt to conduct foreign policy that differed from the president’s, until Republican senators tried it before the Iran deal.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2016/02/what-does-constitution-say-about-picking-supreme-court-justices-not-much

[Maraya1969]

6. Here are some quotes about the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of republicans refusing to ALLOW a vote

for the supreme court nominee

“The Republican members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide, without any input from this committee, that this committee and the Senate as a whole will refuse to consider any nominee this year. It’s a dereliction of our constitutional duty.”

— Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), floor remarks, March 3, 2016

“The Constitution is very clear that we can’t walk away from a constitutional responsibility when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.”

— Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), floor remarks, March 3

“The Senate shall advise and consent by voting on that nominee. That is what the plain language of the Constitution requires.”

— Sen. Michael F. Bennet, (D-Colo.), March 2

“The Senate has responsibility to give that nominee a fair consideration with a timely hearing and a timely vote. It was deeply troubling to me and the people that I work for in Wisconsin that the Republican majority would choose not to fulfill their constitutional duty.”

–Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), March 14

[Maraya1969]

7. New Republic article on how the constitution requires the senate to at least vote on a nominee

The Framers understood that the Senate’s advice and consent power was a narrow one. That power, President George Washington wrote, “extend[s] no further than to an approbation or disapprobation of the person being nominated by the President, all the rest being Executive and vested in the President by the Constitution.” The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if it refuses to meet with the nominee, hear the nominee’s views, learn about the nominee’s record, and then determine whether or not to confirm the nominee.

The Constitution does not require the Senate to confirm a particular nominee, but it does require the Senate to consider the nominee.

The Constitution says the president “shall appoint” Supreme Court justices. Obama has done so. The unprecedented claim being made by Senate Republicans would allow the Senate to totally deprive a particular president of that power. That cannot be squared with the Constitution’s clear text and the critical importance to the Framers of the presidential appointment power. For more than two centuries, the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities, approving scores of Supreme Court justices, many during presidential election years, while rejecting others. Never before has the Senate insisted that it can simply ignore the president’s nominee and refuse to participate in the process required by the Constitution.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131700/republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-pick-violating-constitution

[Maraya1969]

8. Read this please

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “?‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’?”