Republican Party looking forward to the end of the Supreme Court?

[Rev. Rye]

[Whateverist]

[Doubting Thomas]

Too bad the founding fathers didn't provide for the current situation by providing a "If you don't do your job and confirm a justice within X amount of time, then the President can appoint anyone he wants without your say so." Of course they likely didn't foresee one political party putting partisan politics way above the proper functioning of the country. Or they likely thought that the voters would vote out any party which did something like that, but likely never foresaw that half the country would be so apathetic about politics that they don't bother to vote.

[Rev. Rye]

Too bad the founding fathers didn't provide for the current situation by providing a "If you don't do your job and confirm a justice within X amount of time, then the President can appoint anyone he wants without your say so."  Of course they likely didn't foresee one political party putting partisan politics way above the proper functioning of the country.  Or they likely thought that the voters would vote out any party which did something like that, but likely never foresaw that half the country would be so apathetic about politics that they don't bother to vote.

Of course, it should be noted that the most beloved founding father, George Washington, did not trust party politics at all and he didn't forsee the prospect of one choosing to go all Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven towards the country they nominally served.

[Minimalist]

Too bad the founding fathers didn't provide for the current situation by providing a "If you don't do your job and confirm a justice within X amount of time, then the President can appoint anyone he wants without your say so."  Of course they likely didn't foresee one political party putting partisan politics way above the proper functioning of the country.  Or they likely thought that the voters would vote out any party which did something like that, but likely never foresaw that half the country would be so apathetic about politics that they don't bother to vote.

The Founders were notoriously short of foresight.

[account_inactive]

I voted for muffins.

[Iroscato]

Me too. Gimme my fucken muffins, and everyone gets to walk outta here >.>

[Kosh]

Too bad the founding fathers didn't provide for the current situation by providing a "If you don't do your job and confirm a justice within X amount of time, then the President can appoint anyone he wants without your say so."  Of course they likely didn't foresee one political party putting partisan politics way above the proper functioning of the country.  Or they likely thought that the voters would vote out any party which did something like that, but likely never foresaw that half the country would be so apathetic about politics that they don't bother to vote.

The Founders were notoriously short of foresight.

Except for maybe Thomas Jefferson.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

[AFTT47]

When Trump trotted out his list of shitheads he would appoint as SCOTUS members, a few were sitting circuit judges who supposedly required no Senate confirmation - since they had already passed Senate muster to attain their current positions.

Is that right? Can a President bypass the Senate by picking a sitting circuit justice? I'm kind of drunk and not competent to look it up myself.

[Doubting Thomas]

When Trump trotted out his list of shitheads he would appoint as SCOTUS members, a few were sitting circuit judges who supposedly required no Senate confirmation - since they had already passed Senate muster to attain their current positions.

Is that right? Can a President bypass the Senate by picking a sitting circuit justice? I'm kind of drunk and not competent to look it up myself.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I'd say no, any SCOTUS candidate would need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Otherwise Obama could simply just pick a sitting circuit justice and appoint them and bypass the Senate, which would be the smart thing to do by now.