Well, most of us know this because we can read the constitution, and the language is clear. Also, I suspect you are not familiar with the "political question" doctrine which has been applied in the federal courts for decades. Who would have standing?
White House Said to Be Vetting Appeals Court Judge for Supreme Court Seat
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Well, most of us know this because we can read the constitution, and the language is clear. Also, I suspect you are not familiar with the "political question" doctrine which has been applied in the federal courts for decades. Who would have standing?
I'm not familiar and I'm ready to be educated. But if you are starting out by insisting the language in the constitution makes it clear, I'm not sure you're up to the task. Because the constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. Not the majority leader or the chair of the judiciary committee, you must get the Senate's take on this. That only happens by taking a vote.
Here is the text:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
To take out the non-essential:
He shall have Power ... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ...
But, again, this section only specifically applies to the executive.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
To take out the non-essential:
He shall have Power ... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ...
But, again, this section only specifically applies to the executive.
So explain how Advice and Consent is served when they refuse to even meet with a nominee. Look forward to reading it.
LOL. You really don't get it. Advice and consent is not "served". It is given by the Senate, and the constitution gives the Senate absolute discretion. The Senate has "advised" the President that they will not accept any nominee that he puts forward because, in their judgment, the country is best served by waiting until the voters elect a new president to make the nomination to fill this spot. That is the right of the Senate under the constitution. Period.
That isn't the advise the Constitution addresses, it is refusing to give advice.
Now what Trad said might be correct, that the Senate may change their mind once a nomination is made, we shall see.
The Senate has not done this. A few Senators have done this and you are advocating they usurp the power of the rest of the Senate.
Surely, you are not so naïve as to think that McConnell and Grassley are action without consulting the rest of the GOP majority? Are you really disputing that they have the consent of their party for this position? Please.
Similar threads
