The Senate had an obligation to Obama (and by extension the American people) that they nakedly refused to meet for purely political reasons. The court is illegitimate until and unless that is rectified.
Don't stop there with the illegitimacy claims. We should sit here and list out ALL of the obligations our Government fails/has failed at, even the most basic ones. Because surely this isn't the first time they have not met their obligations is it? Then, let's ask the questions: What should be done about it? What are we going to do about it?
This one is near and dear to my heart because of how brazen and open the disdain for the rule of law was, but feel free to list others if you like.
But no on understands what "illegitimate" is supposed to mean. It needs be elaborated on other than being a thinly veiled copy of #NotMyPresident. It was a shitty thing to do, not an unlawful one. Vote the GOP out in 2 years for their gross tactics.
If the senate not confirming a president's nomination made the court illegitimate the requirement that the nominee be confirmed wouldn't exist. On a related note I'm sure another pathetically ineffectual protest is brewing. Woot! #notMYsupremecourt
It was absolutely unlawful, but what are you going to do when those charged with upholding and executing the law violate it en masse?
As far as solutions go, we should move to a system where justices get a single 18 year term, staggered such that a new justice is appointed at the beginning of years 1 and 3 of a President's term. Each presidential victory represents two appointments. This has the following advantages: We can nominate older and more experienced justices without concern for how long "our side" gets to have one of theirs on the bench. The court doesn't shift radically on the whims of father time, but rather steadily and evenly as the population votes. 18 years is long enough to insulate them from the every day politics, but not so long that they become 30-40 year institutions. How to manage the transition would be a clusterfuck however.
They didn't violate the law. I don't know how you think confirmations are expressed in the law, but this explains it pretty well. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/ And I'm not saying this because I think what they did is right or ok. I agree that it was shady bullshit and I prefer moderates like Garland to be on the court, but the senate can proceed however they choose with nominees as per the constitution.
I don't think the idea that the Senate need not "formally" deny their consent of a specific candidate (the irony of Republicans arguing that "silence does not equal consent" notwithstanding) extends to the idea that the Senate expressly declared they would not consider any candidate, and would not allow any nominee by a Democrat to be seated. The Constitution gives the Senate wide latitude, but I don't think it's that wide.
Maybe there is some legal argument to be made because they basically just refused to execute their duties, but even so that requirement isn't clearly stated. Really, there should be a clearly defined time frame in which they have to act. I'm not sure why the founders didn't provide for one as they did in other areas like some of the president's duties, but I would guess they just didn't envision this scenario.
I think it's clear that they never envisioned this level of partisanship and gridlock. They would have expected any reasonable Senate/President to be able to find consensus on a candidate, and for any unreasonable President to be impeached.
Giving the Executive the power to arrest Senators for not doing their duty would be a bigger problem than the Senate not doing its duty in the first place. The Senate is oath and honor bound to perform their duties, but beyond that not much lies between them and doing whatever they want until they are voted out.
There was the vandalism at a cemetery as well, but the fact that feminists and SJWs are the biggest group of fucking liars is one of the most rarely discussed factors in what makes them such annoying twats. Seriously, fabricating hate crimes? Who does this? Aside from the lying, 95% of the hateful and ignorant racist/sexist shit I see actually comes from the feminists and SJWs. Fuck toxic whiteness for realz. Of course, that's supposed to be ok because apparently you can't be bigoted towards 'the bad ones' or whatever the fuck their rationalization is these days. I know that in the grander scheme of things it probably doesn't matter that much, but I can't get over how much they suck.
I haven't seen any names come out yet or any more information. So before we jump to conclusions you do know that only half the country is Jewish right? I'm not saying anything about who this kid is, just that it seems like you're making a little jump there. Not totally unreasonable but if you wait a day or two before gloating you might have more information.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/ Senate approves bill gutting restrictions on ISPs selling user browsing data to advertisers and other third parties. 50-48 straight party vote. Literally no one benefits from this except the Republican donors.
So I guess Trump is done negotiating, and is demanding a vote today? OK. If you ask me this entire effort's been set up to fail: the AHCA is trash, every townhall event has been a near riot in favor of ACA, and a NO vote today allows them to say "We tried, but you know this ineffectual Congress just couldn't come to a consensus, guess we'll be keeping Obamacare for now and HEY look at this tax reform! It's a real priority". Brilliantly played.
It's really not Trump's fault the Republican's had no fucking plan thought out. He will be held to account for threatning primaries for conservatives that voted against it. In the long game sense I sort of hope it goes down in defeat as I think it would be worse to have a slap together bill flailing, creating uncertainy and chaos for average Americans, come mid terms or 20/20. I think he can weather a defeat on this.