What the hell? Who’s the victim? Obama? That’s amazing.
However, the standard for advice and consent isn’t “Well, the President’s nominations are not unreasonable, so we must consent.” Admittedly, that has been the tradition for nearly 200 years, but for most of that 200 years judges were at the Supreme Court doing lawyerly stuff. When they start injecting themselves into what was traditionally part of the democratic process, then it is only right that things change to where the democratic branches of government start to take a larger role in the process.
Why can’t the Senate decide that anyone that Obama nominates is simply too liberal for consideration and then withhold consent and advise that he appoints Luttig? You may not like it, but that it a legitimate part of advice and consent.
The text states that Congress is required to consent to whomever the president nominates. Read it up folks it’s there in black and white (or black and beige or brown and beige or whatever).
Are you making an argument here? Please articulate it.
I think you are worried that 'consent" is a sign of approval of a democrat, or their nominee? It means you have hearings and vote. If you are saying they shouldn’t have to hear anyone because it’s Obama, that’s wrong.
No one has said they have to vote to approve anyone. Scalia has been dead less than 2 weeks. Obama is preparing to nominate, and going through preliminaries. You got a problem with that? State what it is. They have to do their job. You can’t stop a nomination by prior restraint. Even if it was legal the american people would not tolerate you or your party for long afterwards.
It’s your party dude. You can do what you want, but you are running out of good outcomes by acting out with tantrums, and it will be humiliating and cripple you for any future elections.
I’m not Frylock. You may ask him about his statement.
I have stated what I think they are supposed to do.
Saying that they don’t need to have hearings is nonsense. Stating that they must approve a certain individual is nonsense. Saying that this means they can exercise prior restraint and prevent a nomination by the president is nonsense.
It’s really nice that you think that. But it’s not supported by the plain text, which is what we are discussing in this thread. Perhaps you should start another thread where people opine about what it should say, as opposed to what it does say.
What they are supposed to do and what they are constitutionally required to do may be two very different things.
Many agree that the Senate is supposed to put on their collective big boy pants, go through hearings at the committee level, debate the issue on the Senate floor, and finally vote up or down. Do it even if they have to pinch their nose like a petulant child taking his medicine.
But the Senate is not constitutionally required to do any of that. If they want to hold their collective breath until they get their way they are permitted to do so.
Just because I want it to be so does not make it so. Projecting your desires about how things ought to be into the Constitution is not wise.
‘I can have sex with any woman with her consent’ doesn’t mean ‘therefore any woman is required to have sex with me’, and frankly the idea is nonsensical.
Then the founders wouldn’t have require that two branches of the government select the members of the third. If “consent shall be given” by the Senate, then there is no reason for the Senate to involved in the process at all.
Since the Senate is require to be part of the nominating process, and several Presidential nominees have failed to become Supreme Court Justices, it stands to reason that “shall” does not mean the Senate must rubberstamp the President’s selection.
No, it doesn’t. The word “shall” in the Constitution refers to what the President shall do, not the Senate.
The President shall nominate and shall appoint. Nothing there whatever about the Senate shall consent, and the appointment is conditional on the advice and consent of the Senate.
Again - I will take you out to dinner, and, with your consent, shall have sex with you. Therefore, consent has to be given.
Look in the same clause in the Constitution. Just before the stuff about appointment of ambassadors and judges and stuff you will see parallel language being used about providing advice and consent to approve a treaty.
Yet the Senate has declined to ratify, or even take any action at all, on dozens of treaties.
Clearly “advice and consent” means that the Senate can decline to consent.
Look at the quote I posted from the Senate website. I think it clearly states the interpretation: The president appoints justices who have received the consent of the Senate. No consent = no appointment.
Refusal to take part in the process via tantrum
(Does not =)
Having hearings, not consenting to a nominee, and continuing to engage in the process as the constitution provides.