tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post7810343230673287110..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Part II: The Appointments Clause Imposes No Duty on the President To Nominate Supreme Court Justices, Other Article III Judges, and/or Executive Branch Officers. The Appointments Clause Imposes No Duty on the Senate To Confirm Candidates.Hunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-12844752393060518112016-03-25T12:25:12.590-04:002016-03-25T12:25:12.590-04:00Steven -- you wrote "The President has a duty...Steven -- you wrote "The President has a duty to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to act on that nomination." But a plain reading of Marbury, authored by Chief Justice Marshall, for a unanimous Supreme Court, says just the opposite. CJ Marshall described the President's role as "completely voluntary," and the DOJ terms it "discretionary". <br /><br />Now you either knew these facts or you did not. If you knew them, you owed your readers a duty of disclosure. If you did not know them, then ... why are you misdirecting the conversation to one about methodology and originalism? My advice: stop digging--you have already hit rock bottom. <br /><br />Again, the CJ is a'gin you; so is the DOJ. <br /><br />Seth<br /><br />Seth Barrett Tillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-66812229334362887022016-03-25T09:47:49.096-04:002016-03-25T09:47:49.096-04:00If your argument is that a proper originalist inte...If your argument is that a proper originalist interpretation of “shall” empowers the President to avoid nominating a Supreme Court justice – ever – and similarly allows the Senate to refuse to act on a nomination – ever – then it highlights the flaw of originalism. At a minimum, it proves the limits of that approach to constitutional analysis. Specifically, your position suggests that the framers created a mechanism for gutting the judicial branch of government, rather than a co-equal check-and-balance on the legislative and executive branches.Steven J. Harperhttp://www.thelawyerbubble.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-64094773208494572122016-03-25T08:31:45.209-04:002016-03-25T08:31:45.209-04:00I believe the current size--9 members--and quorum-...I believe the current size--9 members--and quorum--6 members--was fixed by statute circa 1869, and has remained unchanged since. Prior to 1869, the size and quorum varied. It was once as high as 10, owing to the difficulties of the Great Rebellion.<br /><br />Seth<br />Seth Barrett Tillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-10993887900269612872016-03-25T03:45:49.861-04:002016-03-25T03:45:49.861-04:00Is there a statute in force specifying 9 members?Is there a statute in force specifying 9 members?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com