Riddle me this (SC again)Follow

The check on that is having the Senate confirm each nomination. The president picks someone and then the legislature says yes or no.

Article II of the constitution allows for the president to nominate supreme court justices. It is a formal power clearly stated.

However, I am not sure if the supreme court is mentioned in Article I. I have this feeling that it isn't, but I really am not sure.

Theoreticly, Advise and Consent means that the Executive will actively seek out and consider the input of the Legislative. Theoreticly politicians can get down off of their party platform now and again and cooperate in a fashion that will move the country as a whole forward. Theoreticly once we dig deep enough we will find the green cheese that the moon is made of.

That's what I said, dumb ***.

Ever heard of recusing one's self in a case where there are conflicts?

Pipe down, junior. Grown folks is talking.

Or a 2-2 tie, or a 1-0 decision. What's your point?

She's a woman. she's a Southern Methodist.

Bush isn't going to nominate a Democrat no matter how much we pray. All things considered it could've been much worse.

--DK

Eh, Tom Delay's personal lawyer in Texas is a democrat. It doesn't -necessarily- mean anything.

Hell, the Dems are probably thinnking that she's Bush's lawyer and once confirmed to the court she'll know all his dirt AND be somewhat distanced from him by the duties of the position. Not the worst of worlds for them.

I don't think it's about whether they go along with what the president want's, but that they often use a SC nomination as a means to politicize the event and score "points".

Congress is supposed to base their approval of a nominee purely on the ability of that person to serve. They are specifically *not* supposed to base it on the politics or judicial stance of the nominee. Yet, what we often see is Congressmen asking specific judicial questions (typically Congressmen of the party other then that of the president). They do this because they know they aren't supposed to ask judicial questions, and they know that the nominee, not only isn't required to answer them, but *shouldn't* (for very good reasons), but they do it anyway because they know that by doing so, it makes it look like the nominee maybe has something to hide, or an agenda, or something else sinister. They're basically playing on the public's lack of knowledge of the nomination process to score some quick and easy political points.

The reason they're not supposed to ask judicial questions is simple. The executive branch is granted that power. Not the Legistlative. And this makes sense if you think about it. While some might call it too much power for the executive to pick judges they agree with (or who agree with them), the executive has no other powers when it comes to creating or ruling on law. Allowing Congress to approve judicial appointments based on how they'll rule on law effectively gives the Legistlative branch the power to both write the laws, and select the judges who'll rule on those laws. That's a *huge* imbalance of power.

Remember all those Democrat Congressmen raising a stink about how he refused to answer questions about how he'd rule on a Roe v. Wade case (and others) if it came to him? Pure posturing for the public. Nothing more. The "drama" of SC appointments only exists because the public gets to see them on TV. If the cameras were turned off, none of those shenegans would occur. Due to the way the rules are written, they can ask any question tbey want. But he's only required to answer questions about his work history and capability to fill the bench. And they're only supposed to vote to approve or disapprove based on those areas as well.



Yeah. I thought it worked that way as well. Never really looked at it though. I think it's just something that's totally up to the president. When a vacancy appears on the bench, he's allowed to fill it in whatever manner he chooses. That could be promoting someone else to Chief Justice, or appointing someone new to fill the spot. I couldn't say how unusual it is for a president to nominate someone new directly to Chief Justice as opposed to promotion of another Justice, so I can't really judge whether there's anything "strange" about it.

what are you, 14? It means before a person has had their morning cup, ****.

I save time by using my coffee cups as ashtrays. I used to pour my coffee into dirty ashtrays but it kepts sloshing out of the little grooves.

I use the coffee pot. Why bother dirtying another cup? As for my ashtray, I use my coffee can