Is It Time For The SCOTUS To Decide If The VP...

[Rightguide]

...can lawfully participate in a Senate vote, where the Senate is equally divided, to confirm the appointment of an associate Justice Of the SCOTUS?

Let us consider if the intent of the Founders was that the Executive Branch itself be the branch that decides who is confirmed, or if the intent was for the Senate to decide. Let the shit storm commence.

We should understand the original intent was for the VP to break a tie on matters of legislation, but I do not think they considered the conflict of interest presented by the present political situation of a 50-50 Senate on confirmation matters.

 

[RobDownSouth]

...can lawfully participate in a Senate vote, where the Senate is equally divided, to confirm the appointment of an associate Justice Of the SCOTUS?

Let us consider if the intent of the Founders was that the Executive Branch itself be the branch that decides who is confirmed, or if the intent was for the Senate to decide. Let the shit storm commence.

We should understand the original intent was for the VP to break a tie on matters of legislation, but I do not think they considered the conflict of interest presented by the present political situation of a 50-50 Senate on confirmation matters.

Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution is explicit:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That's it. No exceptions, no "conflict of interest", no "unless the VP is not
white", no "unless the VP is not male" or whatever the current spluttering of OAN says.

 

[ll74]

...can lawfully participate in a Senate vote, where the Senate is equally divided, to confirm the appointment of an associate Justice Of the SCOTUS?

Let us consider if the intent of the Founders was that the Executive Branch itself be the branch that decides who is confirmed, or if the intent was for the Senate to decide. Let the shit storm commence.

We should understand the original intent was for the VP to break a tie on matters of legislation, but I do not think they considered the conflict of interest presented by the present political situation of a 50-50 Senate on confirmation matters.[

The VP can participate. The rules are defined by the Senate.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course she can. It is not "time for the SCOTUS to decide." It's not even a question of constitutional law.

 

[Rightguide]

Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution is explicit:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That's it. No exceptions, no "conflict of interest", no "unless the VP is not
white", no "unless the VP is not male" or whatever the current spluttering of OAN says.

So you can state unequivocally the founder's intent was for the Executive Branch to confirm their own appointments and not the Senate? I can both understand and sense your fear and the ominousness of your stomach rumblings, but I do think it is an honest question that goes directly to the heart of the founding principle of separation of powers.

 

[pecksniff]

So you can state unequivocally the founder's intent was for the Executive Branch to confirm their own appointments and not the Senate? I can both understand and sense your fear and the ominousness of your stomach rumblings, but I do think it is an honest question that goes directly to the heart of the founding principle of separation of powers.

No, it is not an honest question. The text is plain and admits of no other construction.

 

[Rightguide]

The VP can participate. The rules are defined by the Senate.

The rules cannot violate the Constitution, however. I don't believe the Founder's envisioned the present-day dilemma of an evenly divided Senate that would potentially employ the Vice President on every conceivable legislative question or duty and bring into question infringements on the founding principle of separation of powers.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it is not an honest question. The text is plain and admits of no other construction.

Oh, my apologies, I forgot to punctuate my question with a hammer and sickle.

 

[pecksniff]

Oh, my apologies, I forgot to punctuate my question with a hammer and sickle.

You're the one deviating from "strict constructionism" here.

 

[Rightguide]

You're the one deviating from "strict constructionism" here.

No more than you reading into the Constitution your shopping list of agenda items. At least I can show a plausible direct contradiction to a founding principle the Constitution labors to avoid. Who brought up "strict constructionism"?

 

[Adre]

The rules cannot violate the Constitution, however. I don't believe the Founder's envisioned the present-day dilemma of an evenly divided Senate that would potentially employ the Vice President on every conceivable legislative question or duty and bring into question infringements on the founding principle of separation of powers.

We don’t govern based on what you believe or don’t believe the Founders envisioned. They were very specific about the VP’s participation in Senate votes.

 

[Rightguide]

We don’t govern based on what you believe or don’t believe the Founders envisioned. They were very specific about the VP’s participation in Senate votes.

Yes we do. The SCOTUS cites the founder's intent with ubiquitous regularity.

 

[pecksniff]

No more than you reading into the Constitution your shopping list of agenda items. At least I can show a plausible direct contradiction to a founding principle the Constitution labors to avoid. Who brought up "strict constructionism"?

Every RW who has commented on constitutional law since the New Deal.

At least the expansion of federal power since that time does not go flatly against the plain text of the Constitution. The interpretation you are proposing does.

 

[pecksniff]

The rules cannot violate the Constitution, however. I don't believe the Founder's envisioned the present-day dilemma of an evenly divided Senate that would potentially employ the Vice President on every conceivable legislative question or duty and bring into question infringements on the founding principle of separation of powers.

Of course they envisioned that. It was a very real possibility even then. The Senate is designed to always have an even number of members, which means a 50-50 split is always possible, and it would have been irresponsible of them to design a system where that fact could lead to offices being left vacant until the next election. They provided the vice-presidential tiebreaker for a reason.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The rules cannot violate the Constitution, however. I don't believe the Founder's envisioned the present-day dilemma of an evenly divided Senate that would potentially employ the Vice President on every conceivable legislative question or duty and bring into question infringements on the founding principle of separation of powers.

The "founders' vision" is immaterial to this discussion.

Any and all Senate rules are subordinate to the United States Constitution, which clearly and unambiguously states the VP has the authority to cast a vote on any and all legislation where there is a tie.

The bottom line is that President Joe Biden gets to nominate anyone he wishes. and in the event of a tie on the confirmation vote, Vice President Kamala Harris gets to cast a tiebreaking vote.

No amount of subterfuge, misdirection. "Fox News Legal Analyst op-eds", or deflection can change that underlying fact.

 

[pecksniff]

President Washington once sent a proposed treaty to the SCOTUS to determine its constitutionality. They replied, in effect, we don't do that. As a court of law, we can only rule on a question of law if it comes before us in connection with a case in controversy.

Now, how could this question even come before the SCOTUS? Who would have standing to sue, and on what grounds?

 

[Rightguide]

At least the expansion of federal power since that time does not go flatly against the plain text of the Constitution. The interpretation you are proposing does.

Self serving BS

 

[pecksniff]

Self serving BS

The interpretation you are proposing does go against the plain text of the Constitution, and there isn't any way around that.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course they envisioned that. It was a very real possibility even then. The Senate is designed to always have an even number of members, which means a 50-50 split is always possible, and it would have been irresponsible of them to design a system where that fact could lead to offices being left vacant. They provided the vice-presidential tiebreaker for a reason.

Then why is this only the fourth time in history to have an evenly divided Senate by political party? I think the Founders envisioned an even vote, more than even numbers of party participation.

 

[Rightguide]

The interpretation you are proposing does go against the plain text of the Constitution, and there isn't any way around that.

But so do your gun control and abortion interpretations. That isn't my point.

 

[pecksniff]

I think the Founders envisioned an even vote, more than even numbers of party participation.

Please rewrite that sentence in a way that contains semantic content.

 

[Rightguide]

Please rewrite that sentence in a way that contains semantic content.

In other words a tie vote but not necessarily along party lines.

 

[pecksniff]

In other words a tie vote but not necessarily along party lines.

The FFs were not thinking in terms of a party system, which did not exist at the time, and did not emerge until the first elections to Congress. But its existence makes no difference to constitutional analysis. It never has. The FFs did not want to allow a situation where a tied Senate in any form would lead to deadlock.

 

[Rightguide]

Another thing. Biden's criteria for a "black woman" to be appointed to the SCOTUS is in itself a probable unconstitutional violation of the 14th and 19th Amendments as it's discriminatory in favor of race and gender.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Klanguide wants to change the rules to censor and silence a woman of colour.

I'm not shocked.