There’s no requirement to give advice.
But again, how do you get from “by and with the advice of the Senate, [the President] shall appoint…” all the way to “the Constitution requires hearings and probably a vote?” Your position is all made up. You might as well say the Constitution owes nominees at least a handshake and a meaty sandwich.
There is a requirement to give advice in the same as the the President is required to nominate someone. And if that’s not required, then the Founding Fathers decided to leave an obvious loophole to kill off a branch of government. You believe that?
But again, if it doesn’t reach the Senate floor or a least committee level, one cannot consider it advised on by the Senate. Pretty simple logic here.
But it simply doesn’t say the Senate must provide advice. The two “shalls” refer to the President’s role in nominating and appointing.
The Framers saw that the appointment process could get derailed, even with a Senate acting in good faith. That’s why there is a recess appointment clause.
If there is a “requirement to give advice” then there is a requirement to give consent. Simple logic. But surely the Senate is not required to give consent.
You should note that it is “by and with”, not just “with”.
First, as to the makeup of the Supreme Court… the Founding Fathers started us off with a 6 member court. Its been 7, 9, 10, and 7 before settling on the current 9 member court. There is no constitutional requirement to have 9 members, or an odd number of members.
Some form of a State of the Union communication is constitutionally required. Washington and Adams gave in persons statements, but Jefferson discontinued the practice. It was only in the 20th century that Woodrow Wilson gave a speech before a joint sitting of Congress setting a precedent that became the defacto means of doing so.
And as for court (and other) nominations… there were dealt with by the full Senate without any judiciary committee, for many years. Certainly there is no requirement for a committee hearing. The Senate, as is its constitutionally granted right, sets its own rules to decide how to deal (or not deal) with pending matters including nominations.
Simple pretzel logic maybe.
Advise and consent occur at different times and are logically separate operations not depending on each other for their meaning. voting up or down is required, and is part of consent. Are you playing a semantic game?
What a silly question. Instead of addressing the obvious - republicans pissing all over the constitution they claim to revere in order to get their way - we’re going to spend the next eleven months discussing the words, “shall,” “by,” and “with.”
They’re not “pissing all over the constitution.” Logic and parliamentary decorum, perhaps.
You talking to me??
Pretty sure he means the Republican party “is” pulling a Clinton.
Look who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate. The voters have, once again, spoken.
If/when Obama gets around to offering up a nominee, the public debate over the nominee’s qualifications, biases, prejudices, and golf handicap will begin in earnest.
In the mean time, the President does get to make nominations for the Supremes and the nominee does not actually become a Supreme unless the U.S. Senate confirms the nominee. No confirmation = not gonna be a Supreme.
I don’t think the Senate should be allowed to vote on anything until after the next election. It’s less than a year away.
Agreed. The President should veto every bill that crosses his desk. Them’s the rules!
Mark Kirk, the most vulnerable Republican Senator, says an Obama nominee deserves a hearing.
Again you’re playing a very short sighted game here. the party is falling apart as you watch. You think todays majority means diddley when you are tearing yourselves new ones every day with new lows of illogic?
These rebupkis are saying he shouldn’t even bother, because it’s just not fair.
Yet not one of them has said he would forego making his own nomination if he were POTUS.
The only place where this is a winner for rebupkis is for those who like to post on forums.
“Please lock me away, and don’t allow the day, here inside where I hide…”
Peter and Gordon
Joe Biden is on record as saying
That is not an accurate representation of what he actually said in total. He specifically said that he would consider supporting a moderate nominee.
What he is saying is that the president shouldn’t nominate anyone until after the election. That’s quite different from saying the president should not nominate anyone at all. This was also happening in June, not February.
Not to mention the fact that just because he’s the vice president now doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrong a half a century ago, either. Has he commented on his comments yet?
Approximately 36% of the voters spoke in the 2014 midterm. Pardon me if I don’t feel like being held hostage by a fanatical fringe.