SCOTUS Slaps Down Obama Recess Appointments

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

And because it's just a rule, they can give birth to it as well, but it is within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Of course. What is your point?

 

[about_average]

Here are some of my favorite links showing the tolerance of the Left:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=611105

Why should anyone tolerate an idiot like Sarah (he rode to warn the British) Palin?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your insinuation that a rule is neither constitutional or un-constitutional is incorrect.

I meant only that calling it the "Constitutional Option" is misleading if not nonsensical.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't remember the Pubs calling it that.

I do, very clearly.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I don't remember the Pubs calling it that.

Selective memory is of course convenient when a person happens to be on the losing side of a discussion, so let me refresh your memory.

According to Mr. Republican himself, Rush Limbaugh. Remember When Limbaugh Thought Filibuster Nuclear Option Was The "Constitutional Option"?

“Now, this is Point 2. There's a so-called "nuclear" option, which I don't like that term. Call it the Constitutional Option. It would end the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats are warning that if the Republicans change the filibuster rule on them, then all hell will break loose. I can't think of anything worse than what they've done and will continue to do, which is prevent the president from appointing judges in federal court, so let them break out their new version of hell. What more can they do on this? And let them try it. They don't have the political standing in the country to do this. They don't have the love and devotion of a majority of the American people, so if they're going to claim all hell will break lose, let's see what their hell is.*But don't call this the nuclear option. Call it the constitutional option.”

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

So how does "his" suggestion that it be called the "Constitutional Option" translate into "remember when the pubs called it the Consitutional Option?" Rush does not make Republican Party policy. So, show me where "Republicans" in general called it such.

You so funny.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, link it up. I don't think so.

From 2005:

The precipitating factor is a continuing controversy over President Bush’s judicial selections. Although more than two hundred of Bush’s nominees were approved by the Senate in the past four years, Democrats used the filibuster to stop ten appellate-court choices. As a result, some Republicans are pushing to alter the Senate’s rules so that a simple majority could cut off debate on judicial nominees. With the Senate now split fifty-five to forty-four (with one independent) in favor of the Republicans, the change could render the Democrats almost powerless to stop Bush’s choices, including nominees to the United States Supreme Court. The magnitude of this transformation of the rules is suggested by the nickname it has acquired within the Senate: the “nuclear option.”

<snip>

Changing the Senate’s rules on judicial filibustering was first addressed in 2003, during the successful Democratic filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom Bush had nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ted Stevens, a Republican Senate veteran from Alaska, was complaining in the cloakroom that the Democratic tactic should simply be declared out of order, and, soon enough, a group of Republican aides began to talk about changing the rules. It was understood at once that such a change would be explosive; Senator Trent Lott, the former Majority Leader, came up with “nuclear option,” and the term stuck.

This cloakroom conversation has evolved into a full-fledged proposal, complete with an intellectual pedigree. Several Republican senators told me that they had spent part of the Christmas recess reading the draft of a law-review article co-written by Martin B. Gold, an expert on Senate procedures, who served as an aide to Bill Frist after he became Majority Leader. The article, “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster,” which was recently published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, is a step-by-step guide to changing the Senate rules.

<snip>

Republicans have started to call the tactic the “constitutional option.” In part, this is simply marketing, but the name also reflects the opinion of Orrin Hatch, among others, that the Republicans’ action has a basis in the Constitution, as well as in the Senate rules. With nearly three decades in the Senate, Hatch, who is seventy, may be the nation’s best-known Utahan, even though his Midwestern accent betrays his roots, in Pittsburgh. He was for many years rumored to be a possible Republican appointee to the Supreme Court, and has become instead the unofficial lead constitutional lawyer for Senate Republicans. “The Founding Fathers knew how to create a supermajority requirement when they wanted to,” he told me. “They did it with amending the Constitution, they did it with ratifying treaties, which both require two-thirds of the Senate. And just a few lines below that they said ‘advice and consent’ on judges—no supermajority requirement. By using filibusters on the judges, the Democrats have essentially imposed a supermajority requirement, and we are entitled to stop them. This would not affect filibusters on legislation, which could still take place.” Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, who also supports the change, said, “Filibusters are designed so that the minority can bring about compromise on legislation. You can always change the words of a bill or the dollars involved. But you can’t compromise a Presidential nomination. It’s yes or no. So filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.”