Senate Republicans Seek To Delay Kavanaugh Vote Until Accuser Properly Smeared

[Billy Jingo]

I'm reading through my copy of the Constitution and I can't seem to find the part where it says that the Senate has some particular time constraint upon them for providing Advice and Consent, nor where it says that they are obligated to act at all.

So by not acting, they can eliminate the entire Judicial Branch of our government through attrition?

I am on the fence with that one. I sort of lean toward agreeing with you and that the Senate can take down one full branch of our government merely through inaction. But you have to get past this very clear language:

Article III

Section 1

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, …

Also, there is this bit that can be seen as requiring the Senate act:

Article II

Section 2

... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court …

The Link

[Norm dePlume]

After some period of inaction, I figure the Senate has abdicated their advice and consent role. At some point, silence is consent.

[Billy Jingo]

After some period of inaction, I figure the Senate has abdicated their advice and consent role. At some point, silence is consent.

Isn't consent an affirmative act?

[Adam]

If you went into the office and built paper clip chains all day, it's not illegal but you aren't doing your job.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying here:

The Democrats are under no Constitutional obligation to vote on Kavanaugh before the election.

They can abstain, but they don't control when the vote will be.

Since Newman was specifically referencing a Constitutional obligation, I took your response to mean that that the Senate ("they") has some Constitutional constraint upon the timing of a vote.

Re-reading it, I can see how what you might have meant is that Democrats ("they") presently don't set the voting schedule since they are currently the minority party.

[Adam]

So by not acting, they can eliminate the entire Judicial Branch of our government through attrition?

I am on the fence with that one. I sort of lean toward agreeing with you and that the Senate can take down one full branch of our government merely through inaction. But you have to get past this very clear language:

Article III

Section 1

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, …

Also, there is this bit that can be seen as requiring the Senate act:

Article II

Section 2

... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court …

The Link

Neither of those "shalls" references the Senate, and I suspect that was on purpose. I think that the Founders probably intended abuse of this to be remedied through the erstwhile "ballot box" of state legislatures.

I don't agree with the idea of the Senate just arbitrarily strangling the Judicial branch, but I think that they should have the ability to just refuse to act if they are presented with a nominee whom they find abhorrent or too divisive between them or whatever. Then again, the Supreme Court is clearly supposed to solely interpret the Constitution (on domestic matters) and not rely on outside decisions, but it has strayed widely from that mandate.

[Adam]

After some period of inaction, I figure the Senate has abdicated their advice and consent role. At some point, silence is consent.

Cool. So if Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh is 100% true, it turns out that she consented to this because he covered her mouth, rendering her silent.

[Norm dePlume]

Isn't consent an affirmative act?

"Silence means consent" is a fairly common idiom. Maybe it's situational.

[Norm dePlume]

Cool. So if Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh is 100% true, it turns out that she consented to this because he covered her mouth, rendering her silent.

Well, maybe you interpret things that way, but I make a distinction between voluntary silence and forced silence. On a related note, I similarly distinguish contracts signed at gunpoint and confessions extracted under torture. Also, I figure this shouldn't need to be explicitly spelled out.

[80zephyr]

[QUOTE=Adam;153293]Neither of those "shalls" references the Senate, and I suspect that was on purpose. I think that the Founders probably intended abuse of this to be remedied through the erstwhile "ballot box" of state legislatures.

I don't agree with the idea of the Senate just arbitrarily strangling the Judicial branch, but I think that they should have the ability to just refuse to act if they are presented with a nominee whom they find abhorrent or too divisive between them or whatever. Then again, the Supreme Court is clearly supposed to solely interpret the Constitution (on domestic matters) and not rely on outside decisions, but it has strayed widely from that mandate.[/QUOTE]

If they simply did their job instead of creating law, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Mark

[Newman]

The Democrats are under no Constitutional obligation to vote on Kavanaugh before the election.

They can abstain, but they don't control when the vote will be.

They're trying their best, through demands for new investigations re Ms Ford's Bad Date. The Parties are jousting in the court of public opinion (present and predicted) for control. It's a bit misleading to suggest the Democrats are idle bystanders in setting the date for action.

And as a result, the Court did not have its full complement for a term. The Senate, for partisan reasons, did not do their job.

There is no obligation under the Constitution to have nine, or any particular number of Justices.

If you went into the office and built paper clip chains all day, it's not illegal but you aren't doing your job.

Stalling, slow-walking, #Resisting, treachery, etc. and whatever—these are ALL fire-able offenses. Impeachment is theoretically available, and ordinary criminal statutes apply (cf. William Jefferson of tin foil-wrapped money in the freezer infame), but the true boss is the voting constituent. Simply disagreeing with voting constituents is a fire-able offense. And if enough of those voting constituents agree with Djharkavy, the congress critter will be fired.

[Newman]

After some period of inaction, I figure the Senate has abdicated their advice and consent role. At some point, silence is consent.

"Silence means consent" is a fairly common idiom. Maybe it's situational.

Silence is golden, but not always consent. Certainly not in cases of sexual assault, and certainly not when the language specifies that the Senate must give advice and consent. There is no "deeming" in this.

[Billy Jingo]

Silence is golden, but not always consent. Certainly not in cases of sexual assault, and certainly not when the language specifies that the Senate must give advice and consent. There is no "deeming" in this.

"[G]ive" is not in the text.

It does not indicate in any way how "by and with" is measured or defined.

[Newman]

"[G]ive" is not in the text.

It does not indicate in any way how "by and with" is measured or defined.

You're right.

Let me know when the first president tries to take silence as consent in confirming its nominees.



We've had enough trouble with recess appointments....

[Novaheart]

I dislike both. I prefer days when the difference between parties could result in compromise legislation.

But I see the difference between voting against something and refusing to even debate it.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

There is no compromise on The Bill Of Rights. You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't. Democrats are the ones most sympathetic to restrictions on speech. Democrats are hostile to the Right To Assemble. Democrats are contemptuous of the SRight to Keep and Bear Arms. This makes it difficult but not impossible to side with folks with whom you might not normally choose to associate.

[Djharkavy]

There is no compromise on The Bill Of Rights. You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't. Democrats are the ones most sympathetic to restrictions on speech. Democrats are hostile to the Right To Assemble. Democrats are contemptuous of the SRight to Keep and Bear Arms. This makes it difficult but not impossible to side with folks with whom you might not normally choose to associate.

How is that relevant?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk