That’s the standard line, but clearly the Senate is more equal. It can kill the Supreme Court by refusing nominees and it can impeach the President. So they are only co-equal with regard to legislation really.
And Iggy, the Constitution requires a Supreme Court. It doesn’t demand that we have treaties.
Where can I find that stated in the Constitution? By my reading, the Senate is required to consent to a lot of things the President decides on. I would not have called those two branches “co-equal” in this respect.
The U.S. House impeaches (indicts) the President. The U.S. Senate then holds court to try (judge) the impeachment.
You’re correct but my point stands. The three branches aren’t truly equal.
You are reading it incorrectly. The President is required to obtain the consent of the Senate to put into effect some of the things he decides on. Examples are appointing his nominees and ratifying his treaties.
This is a good argument against the obstructionist interpretation. It does skew the checks and balances, which were intended.
You think that the Senate is “more equal” than the President. Frylock thinks the opposite, that the Senate is subordinate to the President. You both can’t be right, so which is it?
It does not require a Supreme Court selected by a particular President. The thread is about a textualist meaning of the clause. If the Senate says “this President has shown himself to be too far left/right/centrist such that we will refuse to consider any of his nominees” how is that not withholding consent to a nomination in full compliance with the Constitution?
Must the Senate go through the charade of hearings and voting? What part of the Constitution requires a Senate vote?
Indeed. What part of the Constitution requires a hearing? Or a hearing before the Judiciary Committee? Or any Senate Committees, at all?
The president can declare war, and veto legislation. The SCOTUS can overturn legislation.
The three branches were set up to be co-equal, and to have checks and balances. But there is no really good way to compare the different powers and detriment if one is “more equal” than the other. The point is that the power is shared, and no one branch can completely annul the other.
You are focusing on one power granted to the Senate without reference to other powers granted to the other branches.
An you suggesting that the three branches are identical, or should be identical? That’s just silly. The three branches have different functions. Them’s the rules. Why bother having three branches if they all preform the same functions? Why make arrangements to have the U.S. Senate confirm a Presidential nomination if, in your mind, the confirmation is automatically given?
The three branches have separate responsibilities. In this particular case, the President nominates someone to the Supremes (Has Obama performed his doody and coughed up a nominee, yet?). The U.S. Senate would then, if they are ever presented with a nominee, either confirm Harry Reid’s nominee, oops, Obama’s nominee, or let it pass, unconfirmed, into history.
History shows that the U.S. Senate does NOT have to confirm Presidential nominations.
Wow, insightful analysis.
I am saying that effectively, the legislative branch CAN annul the others. They can remove a President and not allow new judges to the Supreme court. They can override Presidential vetoes. They are clearly set up as the ultimate authority even if political realities have kept the checks and balances working up to this point.
Maybe my wording was poor. Congress can impeach and remove a president, but it can’t eliminate the post of the president. So, they get another president with the same powers and authority as before.
Are you saying that they can eliminate the post of SCJ too?
You would think so, but some people seem to be having a difficult time understanding that simple fact.
I’m actually not sure, but they cannot eliminate the Supreme Court as an institution.
Congress can play an important role in changing the constitution, and could theoretically lead the charge to change the powers or the office of the president or the existence of the SCOTUS through the amendment process. But the states have to agree, too.
Why are you not sure? As you’ve noted, they are not required in any way to even discuss a nominee. If the two parties decided or one party dominated long enough, they can quite clearly empty the Supreme court. It is an unelected body, after all - I can see a time where such a policy wouldn’t make the electorate blink.
Did you forget the will of the voters? Did you forget the voters? Did you forget that there are voters? The voters have spoken. During Obama’s reign, the voters changed the majority in the U.S. Senate from Democrat to Republican.
This is still a democratic republic, not some one-party-to-rule-them-all dictatorship.
I didn’t forget the voters. That’s what “electorate” means which is a word I used in the bit you quoted.