31 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

It also certainly wouldn't help him before the Hague, where he truly belongs.

Awwwwww that's cute, someone who thinks anything but crack pot dictators are accountable to international laws.

I agree with both these statements.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Presidential pardon is also not quite absolute: the right of Congress to impeach the President overrules even the broadest self-absolution. It also certainly wouldn't help him before the Hague, where he truly belongs.

 

Yes and no. The presidential pardon power is absolute and unrestricted. Thus it would have been perfectly legal for Nixon to pardon himself before resigning (in fact he seriously considered doing so). Congress could still impeach and remove a president who had pardoned himself, probably citing abuse of power, but they could not undo the pardon.

 

Because it's such a potentially hot political potato, presidents generally reserve use of their pardon powers until the end of their terms, when any political repercussions would be moot since they're leaving office anyway.

 

Presidential pardons, by the way, only apply to federal crimes. Most people in prison are there for state crimes, and would not be eligible for a presidential pardon (that's where governors come in).

[Allant]

When is Obama gonna nominate someone? Seems like he needs to hurry up.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Scalia just died last week. I would expect a nomination in the next week or so.

[Allant]

Well its not like they needed to scrape the body off his damn supreme court chair, chop chop there is shit to do.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...tion-obama.html

 

Waiting just plays right into these buffoons hands.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It's normal to wait a few weeks to name a successor. Not that it matters, the Republicans have already said they're not going to hold confirmation hearings anyway. He should still name someone, of course, if only to highlight their obstructionism. But there's no rush.

[Molagbal]

Guess ignoring the constitution is  getting even more popular.  They have a duty to at least give the person chosen by Obama a hearing and a vote, that is their constitutional duty.  If they don't agree vote against who ever Obama sends but this is just so dumb and stupid. 

Edited by Molagbal, 23 February 2016 - 06:39 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Guess ignoring the constitution is  getting even more popular.  They have a duty to at least give the person chosen by Obama a hearing and a vote, that is their constitutional duty.  If they don't agree vote against who ever Obama sends but this is just so dumb and stupid. 

 

Actually, all the Constitution says is that the Senate provides "advice and consent" on nominations. It makes no provisions for the mechanism of how this should work, or when. That has been established by precedent. From a constitutional perspective, the Republicans are probably within their rights. All they have to say is, "Our advice is that you not nominate anyone. We do not give our consent." The Constitution, after all, doesn't say anything about senators not being assholes. This battle will be waged in the court of public opinion.

[Molagbal]

Guess ignoring the constitution is  getting even more popular.  They have a duty to at least give the person chosen by Obama a hearing and a vote, that is their constitutional duty.  If they don't agree vote against who ever Obama sends but this is just so dumb and stupid. 

 

Actually, all the Constitution says is that the Senate provides "advice and consent" on nominations. It makes no provisions for the mechanism of how this should work, or when. That has been established by precedent. From a constitutional perspective, the Republicans are probably within their rights. All they have to say is, "Our advice is that you not nominate anyone. We do not give our consent." The Constitution, after all, doesn't say anything about senators not being assholes. This battle will be waged in the court of public opinion.

I guess but its still pathetic 

[Panginoon]

The problem is the senate's argument that it should be left for the next president to choose. That isn't going to go well in the court of public opinion but little Mitch doesn't care because in that court the opinion is they are all little shits already. The precedent on the procedure has been set, but as mentioned the DC guy has already been vetted and approved. Republicans lose no matter what they do.God I wish there were term limits for those bastards.

[Allant]

Name someone already, I will start supporting the Republican's positions soon. Hurry the fuck up. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The problem is the senate's argument that it should be left for the next president to choose. That isn't going to go well in the court of public opinion but little Mitch doesn't care because in that court the opinion is they are all little shits already. The precedent on the procedure has been set, but as mentioned the DC guy has already been vetted and approved. Republicans lose no matter what they do.God I wish there were term limits for those bastards.

 

Believe it or not, term limits would only make things worse. When you enact term limits, what happens is that lots of highly ideological, one-issue candidates get elected. This is what happened when California enacted term limits for their legislature. Eventually the whole system was paralyzed with gridlock, even worse than Washington, and it became impossible to govern.

Anyway, we HAVE term limits. They're called "elections." Get private money out of politics, make elections fair and publicly funded, and most of these problems go away.