Really?
The parties to that suit were the US government and Nader, neither of which defended the firing.
That ruling means nothing.
Did it include insubordination?
The Senate gave Obama their advice. It was “shove it”. You just don’t like the advice, which is a completely different matter.
Yes the constitution decides what their job is - can you point to a place in that document that says that holding a hearing or having a vote on a judicial nominee is part of their job? I bet you a quadrillion dollars that you can’t. Now there are in fact other duties that are specifically mentioned in the constitution - like choosing certain officers and having a President pro tempore. If you’re talking about those duties, then sure. If they fail to have a President pro tempore then go forth and accuse them of not doing their job. That would have constitutional basis. Saying that the Senate didn’t do its job with Garland does not.
You recognize this when you say that they don’t have to have hearings and that it can be just about anything, then switch to the “ought to” phrasing when talking about a vote. Sure, they ought to. They ought to do a lot of things. They are not required to do this thing.
What “The Senate”? Was a vote held? No it was just the GOP leadership acting on their own.
The Senate did that? How do you know - was there a vote?
No, as you surely know, it wasn’t “the Senate”. It was two guys acting out their spite.
Their “advice” was that no nominee from *this *President would get the time of day. How you can defend that is something for you to explain.
There’s this thing called The Constitution that you may have heard something about.
Let’s go with that. Can you quote the part of the constitution that requires the senate to have a vote or a hearing? I assert you cannot.
I’m not a Democrat.
Related to my observation, though, if Trump doesn’t want to live in the White House, Pence should, because when Trump gets impeached or removed under the terms of the 25th Amendment, it’ll save on moving expenses.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to besmirch your reputation like that. My apologies.
Were I a U.S. citizen, I’m sure I’d be voting Democrat, as they seem to have a greater handle on rationality and sanity than their rivals.
The GOP has an extremely slim majority in the Senate; likely to be 52-48. The Democrats may try to pick off as many moderate GOP votes as possible in the event that Trump nominates someone like William Pryor. Would only require 3 Republican defectors in the confirmation vote.
There are 10 Senate Democrats up for election in 2018 in states won by Trump. I think the more likely defections will be Democrats voting for a Trump nominee rather than Republicans voting against it.
No. Unless you consider a Senate voting to defer considering a nomination a “vote”. There was no consideration of the candidate on his merits. There was no vote to grant or refuse advice and consent.
Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:
*[The President] 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.
They are required to advise and consent. The Senate did neither.
The Senate didnt hold a vote, or a hearing or give advice. Two Senate leaders simply said the Senate would not act. More or less Just one guy, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell . Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not the Senate. The Senate did not advise and consent.
Still a vote. Of some sort. Held by the Senate, not just one guy.
Dr. Deth, you’re still wrong.
Article I Section V states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”
Hearings are not required.
Non-sense. When the President does something, and the Senate has the power to stop it but doesn’t even attempt a vote, that sure looks a lot like “consent” to me.
Is it your contention that the advise and consent clause requires a vote, or a hearing? If that it is your contention then you are wrong. There is no basis to construe or define that phrase in the way you are attempting. All of the statements you written are not at all relevant to the duties of the senate.
I would think by now where we are with the Garland nomination that this was apparent. If there was any way to compel a vote on Garland I imagine it would have happened by now - that it has not renders your statement that they are required to do such and such hollow. It’s simply not true and there is no reputable cite that will say it is.
Why does there have to be a vote? The constitution says nothing about a vote. But the Constitution does say the Senate gets to set its own rules.