But that’s not how people are framing the debate. Instead, we have comments like
“The Republicans are breaking the rulz, and violating the Constitution”
Of course it isn’t true, but posters are repeating it across multiple threads and forums.
What gets me about this whole thing is the bald-faced announcement of what the Republicans’ intent was, especially on the part of those NOT running for President. If they’d just kept quiet and did what they’re expected to do, but not told anyone about their reasoning, what could anyone do if they just said repeatedly, “We need time to thoroughly vet this candidate and make sure that this crucial lifetime appointment is filled with some of the requisite experience and temperament”?
Apparently, someone, or a lot of someones, think announcing their intent so brazenly is good political strategy. We’ll see, I suppose.
Neither of the quotes you cited said that the President didn’t have a right to nominate a candidate. Why are you continuing to misrepresent their position?
Cruz’s position (and I’m not a fan of his) is neither unconstitutional, nor against the rules.
The Constitution does not mandate hearings or votes. The Senate makes its own rules, subject to change by majority vote at any time. Do you understand this?
I agree. Some politicians should have just shut their traps. Too late now, I guess.
But then how would the base know they were standing up against Evil from Day One? That’s part of the problem, if they all do it through the regular procedural motions w/o calling attention to it they are then open to some radical attacking them for doing things the Washington way.
The fact that the Senate CAN do this does not in any way contradict the notion that they’d be violating the Constitution by doing so. After all, who’s going to hold them to account? The courts tend to stay out of Constitutional disputes between the other two branches, and even if they got involved, the Supreme Court is divided 4-4. And unlike if the President violated the Constitution, if Congress does it, the President can’t exactly impeach them.
But the argument that they’d be violating the Constitution is pretty open-and-shut: the Constitution specifies the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent on nominations, and they’re saying they simply won’t.
I don’t see how one makes it come out any other way, unless you use some of those penumbras and so forth that conservatives endlessly gripe about.
Their advice is along the lines of ‘don’t send us any nominees’. Might not like it. Might be stupid advice. But hardly unconstitutional.
The relevant bits of the Constitution state:
… and he [the President] 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: …
The President **shall **nominate. He has a Constitutional obligation to do so. People may argue about a timeline, but in the due course of business after conducting due diligence is a reasonable, if vague, possible standard.
But there is no **shall **for the Senate. No mandate to give consent. No mandate to do anything. It is the President who must await the Senate’s Advice and a position on the Supreme Court is filled permanently only with the Senate’s Consent.
What - “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” leaves room for their refusing to offer any?
Maybe there’s no ‘shall’ actually written there. But that phrase certainly shouts that that Advice and Consent is a thing that must happen as part of the process.
They’re welcome to give their reasons for rejecting this or that nominee. But “we’re not going to let you fill vacancies just because” is not Advice.
Has Obama nominated him?
Has Obama nominated anyone?
Public posturing before an event takes place is common both in and out of politics. It’s interesting that Democrats automatically assume that Obama can’t get the job done. Democrats should tell Obama to put on his big boy mom jeans, make a nomination, and try everything he can to get his nomination approved.
I look forward to your support of Obama when he holds the Senate at gunpoint to force his nomination through.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution would have ever given a moment’s thought to the notion that the Senate would simply fail to consider a nominee.
The president shall do it and I think it is implicit that the Senate shall give advice and consent. “Neener neener neener” is not advice and consent.
Count me in again as saying that all nominees deserve an up or down vote.
At least at the committee level, if the Judiciary Committee votes it down that’s good enough for me, provided they give reasons for so doing.
(Underline added)
Since it’s understood by all interested parties that a SCOTUS nomination MUST be confirmed by the Senate, I assume that the “and Consent” part means that the Senate must confirm the nomination or the nominee will never be part of the Supremes.
The Senate is free to handle a President’s nomination as it sees fit. Wouldn’t a refusal to vote, or to even discuss, the nomination be their way of advising the President that his nomination isn’t going to be confirmed?
It’s not the best advice but it would mean that a President’s nominee will not receive the needed consent. Consent is needed to put butts on the seats of the Supreme Court. Consent can be withheld.
I love how everything Republicans do is actually Obama’s fault.
Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham in order to force a government shutdown: Obama’s fault.
Donald Trump saying that Mexico is going to pay to build a wall on the border: Obama’s fault.
Sarah Palin’s family getting arrested for assault: Obama’s fault.
Larry Craig seeking sex in airport bathrooms: Obama’s fault.
If only Obama were a better President, David Vitter wouldn’t have gone to see those hookers at all.
Yep, let’s not forget which is the party of personal responsibility – the Republicans, because everything bad that happens, this one particular person is responsible for it.
No, what they are doing is refusing to advise and consent, shirking their constitutional duties.
In the end, they’ll drop this charade just like they back away from the abyss when it’s time to raise the debt ceiling.
I think the lack of any explicit check over the Senate, other than political, is a major flaw of the Constitution.
You don’t realize how much of our government comes down to convention and good faith until something like this happens.
(post shortened)
Obama wants to add someone to the Supremes. Obama first needs to find someone to nominate. Then Obama needs to shepherd his nominee thru the Senate.
Democrats already assume that Obama can’t get the job done and nothing is ever Obama’s fault or responsibility. And now for some sports scores. Green Bay 12, Red Wings 3, Yankees 8, Ohio State 27, and Bulls 98.
The voters are the explicit check over the Senate. If the voters don’t like the actions of their Senators, they can impeach them or elect someone else.