What happens to the GOP on Nov. 9th?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Two things:

1. McCain was the one who first brought this up.
2. Undermining the Constitution for political gain is not something people like.

That depends on who benefits from undermining it.

[DiogenesLamp]

That depends on who benefits from undermining it.

You and I agree on this.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well,  first of all,   it isn't undermining the constitution,  it is complying with it by exercising the constitutional prerogative which the Senate is granted.

Patently and demonstrably wrong.

Congress has a Constitutional duty to maintain a specific number of Judges in the Court. The minimal number is six, as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, so HonestJohn is correct when he points out that not keeping the number of judge mandated by any act of Congress under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause is undermining the Constitution. Consequent acts of Congress grew the number of justices to seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1869 that number was finally set at mime via the Circuit Judges Act of the same year.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Every one of these people except the guy third from the left (third from the left) have publicly announced they will be supporting Hillary Clinton for president.

The two on the left...

Trump basically shit on their sons and called them all kinds of names.

The one on the right is married to one of those people whose name and legacy Trump trampled on to get to where he wanted to go.

So, maybe you are OK with people shitting on your kids and your spouse, but apparently, they're not. 

P.S. I'm not totally convinced that Trump isn't voting for Hillary.

Neither one of us will ever know the answer to that.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Patently and demonstrably wrong.

Congress has a Constitutional duty to maintain a specific number of Judges in the Court. The minimal number is six, as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789.....

An Act of Congress cannot override the Constitutional prerogatives of any branch of the government, 

,

so HonestJohn is correct when he points out that not keeping the number of judge mandated by any act of Congress under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause is undermining the Constitution.

I'm not sure what "undermining" the Constitution actually means.  Either something is a violation of the Constitution, or it isn't.  And I really don't see how the Senate exercising it's right not to confirm justices can be a violation of the Constitution when they are specifically granted that power.

[Luis Gonzalez]

An Act of Congress cannot override the Constitutional prerogatives of any branch of the government, 

,
I'm not sure what "undermining" the Constitution actually means.  Either something is a violation of the Constitution, or it isn't.  And I really don't see how the Senate exercising it's right not to confirm justices can be a violation of the Constitution when they are specifically granted that power.

U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 18 - The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause 2 - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Every branch of government is bound to follow and abide by every lawful act of Congress enacted under their constitutionally-granted powers.

If not that, then what?

[Oceander]

U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 18 - The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause 2 - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Every branch of government is bound to follow and abide by every lawful act of Congress enacted under their constitutionally-granted powers.

If not that, then what?

Define follow and abide by. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 18 - The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Sure, Congress has the power to make laws, but the Constitutional power to make laws does not give those laws equal or greater status than provisions of the Constitution itself.  Laws inconsistent with the prerogatives expressly stated in the Constitution itself are invalid.  That's the entire principle of judicial review.

I'm not claiming that the Judiciary Act of 1869 is unconstitutional.  I'm saying that the interpretation you are attaching to it -- that the Senate must confirm presidential nominees so as to keep the number at 9 -- is wrong.  The power of advice and consent inherently includes the power not to consent, which mean that the number of sitting justices would be less than the number authorized by Congress.  The Constitution both contemplates and permits this.  So, the only Constitutionally correct interpretation is that there are nine seats to be filled, subject to the Senate's confirmation of people to fill those seats.

Every branch of government is bound to follow and abide by every lawful act of Congress enacted under their constitutionally-granted powers.

Well, let's cut to the chase:  if Congress passed a law requiring the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee within, say, six months, is that law binding and Constitutionally sound?