
To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code - dean
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3687/text
======
bluejekyll
<sarcasm> I am so happy that congress has time for this extraordinarily
important bill. It's definitely more important that we don't allow these words
to continue to be used, than to appoint a new judge to the Supreme Court.
</sarcasm>

When do we declare a state of idiocracy?

~~~
Turing_Machine
1) It's from 2003, and never went anywhere. It was referred to committee on
01/15/2004 and was never seen again.

2) Congress can actually have more than one bill in progress at the same time.

3) "Not willing to appoint a judge you want rather than one they want" is not
the same thing as "not having time to appoint a judge". At all.

~~~
bluejekyll
1) Thanks for the timeframe, I wa swindle ring about that.

2) yes, but this one is idiotic, as many are, but still.

3) the President's job is to appoint, Congresses job is to hold a hearing and
approve. They have failed to do anything approve/deny, therefor in breach of
their constitutional obligation. But you're right it's not about time, so much
as politics, but it's a first in history that this congress failed to act. I
mean hell, Thomas was a horrendous choice, but even after all the negative
stuff about came out in congress they _still_ approved him. What they do now
is unpresidented.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Congresses job is to hold a hearing and approve"

No, there is no duty to "hold a hearing" mentioned in the Constitution. There
isn't even a Constitutionally-mandated set number of justices on the court.
There have been anywhere from six to ten in the past. Eight is just fine, from
a Constitutional perspective.

The Senate has to give their consent. They're not giving it. That's their
prerogative.

Also, there have been _many_ cases of Supreme Court nominees not being
approved, so this isn't even close to a "first in history".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

Note in particular the cases where a vote on the nomination was "postponed
indefinitely".

~~~
dragonwriter
> Also, there have been many cases of Supreme Court nominees not being
> approved,

There have been many cases of nominees being _rejected_. Not being considered
and voted on within a fairly short time window is far less common (in fact, at
the time this particular nomination has reached, unprecedented.)

~~~
Turing_Machine
You are wrong. Utterly and completely wrong. Read the linked Wikipedia
article.

Not only have there been _numerous_ cases of the vote being "postponed
indefinitely" (and then not ever actually being held), there was at least one
case where a sitting President (Millard Fillmore) proposed not one, but
_three_ separate nominees. The Senate took _no action whatsoever_ on _any_ of
the three nominees.

Not the common case, perhaps. "Unprecedented"? Hardly.

Edit:

Here is the source cited by Wikipedia:

[http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomin...](http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)

Note that "no action" (i.e., exactly what's going on now) has been used 9
times, and "postponed" has been used 3 times. Between them, they add up to
exactly the same number as the number of formal rejections (12). Using a
parliamentary maneuver to avoid a formal confirmation vote does not only have
plenty of precedent, it's historically been just as common as a formal
rejection.

I would recommend that you try to recall exactly which media source gave you
the impression that this procedure was "unprecedented", then place no further
trust in that source, since it is clearly either dishonest or incompetent.

