So McConnell will amend constitution to limit President to court picks ONLY in first 3yrs of term?

[blm]

If this is based in principle as he claims, then he must have already written the legislation calling for a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to Supreme Court nominations only in the first 3 yrs of their term.

He should submit that legislation for a senate vote then as soon as possible. If this is truly the principle he wishes to impose on the American people, then he should demand this change to the constitution……NOW!

Unless he is lying, of course, and it's only about obstructing THIS president, and this president ONLY.

Gee - which could it be? I say Dems call McConnell's bluff and request McConnell seek change in constitution if his 'principle' is so earnest.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. And this will go the way of the other thousands of proposed amendments

that have crashed and burned on takeoff. It's just more political posturing by Turtle Man.

[Vinca]

2. Turtle man is a fool. By not confirming this moderate judge, he's leaving the door open

for some serious lefties for the next POTUS. Maybe this time their anti-Obama strategy will backfire big time.

[blm]

3. I hope Dems demand Mitch go through legislative process to change the constitution to reflect

this new 'principle' he and his fellow Republicans are so fiercely and earnestly imposing on the American people.

Show us the legislation to amend the constitution, Mitch. Let the senate vote on your 'principled' cause.

[Hortensis]

8. Turtle Man is no fool, and IMO he has no intention of

limiting GOP presidents' power. It's just a move on the board. "See, it IS about principle!"

[blm]

9. Well, then Dems need to call his bluff. Shine the light on this 'principle'.

If Mitch won't do it they should craft the legislation themselves and see how many PRINCIPLED Republican senators vote to amend the constitution.

[Hortensis]

14. Turtlehead would have to allow it.

[blm]

17. FIND TV CAMERAS and bluff Mitch on his 'principled' position.

Make reporters question his principled position if he claims to NOT wish to amend the constitution to reflect his 'principled' position.

There ARE tv cameras in DC, right?

[Hortensis]

18. Sure. We have very good players on our side.

The GOP is between a major rock and hard place on this one. Most of their own people don't approve of holding out, yet to allow us to name a Supreme Court justice would be disastrous for their dreams of national takeover. In blocking us they increase the risk losing the presidency, Senate, various congressional seats, many state offices, and governorships to us. You can be sure our very best minds are working on this.

And push come to shove, an eight-person Supreme Court is not good but it works better for us than for them on average.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. I hope he remembers the part requiring judges to only *die* during the first 3 years of POTUS terms.

[blm]

5. LOL - Would love to hear the senate debate McConnell's 'principled' change to the constitution.

Perhaps if we call for McConnell to submit his changes to the senate ASAP, we can have this debate.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Tony! Get Up! You've Got Work To Do!

You can wait until next year, Tony!

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Quite some years ago I served as president of a professional association . . . . .

. . . . . where the hot topic was a skills/knowledge test and continuing ed required to maintain full professional membership. The plans for this were in the drafting stages for years. There was a small but very vocal and influential group who opposed it, preferring to keep in to keep in place the "good old boy" network that had held sway since Moby Dick was a minnow. The old system effectively excluded women and minorities, among others.

Everyone agreed things had to change. The board was ready to vote when it became apparent that a few had been influenced and were ready to vote no.

I got with my executive committee and we redrafted the item to be proffered for a vote. Now the vote was not to pass it, but to kill it and to enshrine the prohibition in the organization's constitution. Vote counting showed the measure would never pass, but we wanted those on the fence to be made to vote it down affirmatively instead of simply voting no.

Basically, it became a put up or shut up vote. If these people were going to oppose it, here was their big chance.

The measure failed unanimously and the original measure passed unanimously.

Sometimes you have to stand for something.

[blm]

7. Dems have to frame McConnell's 'principle' this way: Then vote to amend the constitution to declare

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

that a President shall ONLY nominate judges in the first 3 years of their term.

MAKE SENATE DEBATE AND VOTE for that 'principled' position they claim to hold.

EVERY Dem needs to make this point every day, imo.

So should the press who is doing a pisspoor job of demanding a greater explanation of this alleged 'principled' position.

[malaise]

22. Not just the President

Senators in their last year as well

[blm]

24. Exactly - Call Mitch out on this 'principled' position of his - FIND NEWS CAMERAS

News groups should be demanding McConnell hold a press conference so he could further explain exactly how he came to this 'principled' position that no president should nominate a judge in his 4th year of office.

[spanone]

10. no, because then the law would also apply to them. they will simply not vote.

[blm]

11. Then Dems need to call their bluff - Principled position, my ass.

.

[lunatica]

12. There hasn't been a Constitution since George Bush was selected to be President

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Are Democrats

going to propose an amendment setting a time limit within which the Senate must consider judicial nominations?

If not, assholish as this is, there is no violation of the Constitution.

[Calista241]

15. He doesn't have to amend anything.

He's the Majority Leader. Nothing makes it to the floor without his approval. If you don't like it, work to elect some democrats.

Personally, i'm not super excited about this pick, and I'd rather get the pick we want by waiting until the election.

[mulsh]

16. He must have given up trying to find the 3/5ths clause in article II.

n/t

[madville]

19. Why would he need to?

Under the current Constitution the Senate has the power to not give consent at anytime. It's not complicated, the President has the power to nominate and the Senate has the power to say no.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Exactly n/t

[blm]

21. I'm referring to Mitch's CLAIM of it being a 'principled' position that president should not

nominate a court pick in his 4th year of term, that it should be left to next president.

If it is truly a stance based in GOP 'principles' then they should make it permanent, or at least, ATTEMPT to amend the constitution to reflect their principled position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. By his logic, any appointment should only happen in odd-numbered years

Because in any even-numbered year, there are senators who are in the sixth year since they were voted for. If he thinks a president in his 4th year doesn't represent the people, then a 6th year senator voting on the nomination must be even worse.

[blm]

25. Perfectly stated.

.

[DetlefK]

27. Wait, isn't the House up for re-election as well?

Wouldn't it be awfully political for the House to make political decisions right before an election?

Shouldn't the House cease all its business and wait for the will of the voters?

And what about lame-duck sessions? Wouldn't they be the epitome of violating the will of the people?

[PoliticAverse]

26. No need to amend the Constitution, it already doesn't make the Senate consent to a President's...

appointment.

[blm]

30. I was being sarcastic - my attack is on his claim to hold a 'principled' position.

I am also saying Dems and media should demand a greater explanation of his 'principle' and test it.

[PoliticAverse]

34. Polls already show the majority of the American people want the senate to hold hearings...

on Obama's nominee. That's the issue.

[hobbit709]

28. the Republicans ran the 22nd amendment for term limits through because they hated FDR.

And ever since when a R gets elected, they talk about repealing it.

[Initech]

29. All this is, is the Republicans saying "fuck you" to Obama, nothing more.

McConnell talks a lot of shit about undermining Obama but when the time comes to actually do something, he'll run and hide with his tail between his legs.

[procon]

32. * This law shall only apply to Democratic Presidents.

** The Obstruction Clause shall become effective on day one of the first term in office when said elected president is a person of color.

[blm]

33. Undoubtedly.

.

[ruralsteve]

35. If a hearing for nominee ...

... isn't scheduled sometime in the next 30 days, President Obama should sue the Senate in the Supreme Court for violation of their constitutional duties. Wouldn't you just love to hear the GOP Senate try to argue their mealy-mouthed justifications in front of the court whose viability their inaction is threatening?

[blm]

37. That would be perfect - sue the Senate for NOT doing their job.

Would LOVE to hear them trot out their 'principled' position defense under OATH.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. Don't hold your breath waiting for one

There is NOTHING "principled" about the Republican's stance on this. If this was 2008 and Harry Reid pulled a stunt like this to prevent George W. Bush from nominating a replacement for, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we all know that Republicans, Fox News, et. al would be screeching and howling about it and demanding a hearing and vote for a nominee. They WERE, as you remember, up in arms and threatening to "go nuclear" about Democrats filibustering some of George W. Bush's judicial nominations back in 2005 and calling for "up-or-down votes" on them (which they promptly reversed themselves on the microsecond Barack Obama became POTUS). The bottom line for them is that nobody but them gets to replace Scalia (though they won't be able to hold out for 4 years if they don't win in November).