CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate does not have to do anything on nomination because SCOTUS can't make it do it.

The President can't make it do it.

This is separation of powers and checks and balances.

 

[Syriusly]

The Senate does not have to do anything on nomination because SCOTUS can't make it do it.

The President can't make it do it.

This is separation of powers and checks and balances.

Nobody can make the Senate do its job except the voters.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't think there is anything unsettled by it- Senators can refuse to do their Constitutional duty for partisan reasons as the GOP is doing.

Its the new GOP.

No...you can't make up a duty that you want them to have and then accuse them of not doing it...there is nothing in Article 3 that states they have to do anyting in particular in regards to judges...other than to advise the President about them and then give their consent before they fill their seats...that's it...

Actually there is, as quoted previously, it says in article 2 section 2: "...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,..." Seems fairly clear that the COTUS sets the expectation for the Senate to "advise AND consent" or advise and withhold consent. Either way, they have an obligation to either consent or not, but the option of not addressing at all, I don't think so. The only reason to refuse to act is that they cannot get the votes needed to withhold consent, and the leadership doesn't want the nominee to be confirmed.

Sorry....nothing you posted says they have to do anything...the President shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate doesn't say they have to give consent....they appointee simply can't be confirmed without their consent...again, there is no mandate that they do anything...

I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear. The duty, according to the COTUS, of the Senate is to "advise and consent". Now, they do not have to say "yes" nor do they have to say "no", but they do have the duty to say one or the other. If not, then what, exactly, is the point of the "advise and consent" clause? It was put there for a reason, and IMHO it was to convey that the Senate must act in a reasonable amount of time.

That is erroneous. You are adding something to the Constitution that is not there. Should you continue to disagree, I will continue to wait for the text confirming their obligation to say one or the other, or take any action at all.

All it says is that the president shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

It does not say that the Senate must grant, decline, or even discuss it. It is a power-check on the president, not demand for the Senate to humor him.

I'll try this one more time, and please pay attention to the wording, it is subtle, but important.
"I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear. The duty, according to the COTUS, of the Senate is to "advise and consent". Now, they do not have to say "yes" nor do they have to say "no", but they do have the duty to say one or the other. If not, then what, exactly, is the point of the "advise and consent" clause? It was put there for a reason, and IMHO it was to convey that the Senate must act in a reasonable amount of time."
Notice I never said that they are required to do anything, but that I believe they have the duty to do something. Again, it is my opinion that they have the duty to act. I am unaware of any legal requirement, nor case law that says this, it is my opinion.
Hopefully this clear it up.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No...you can't make up a duty that you want them to have and then accuse them of not doing it...there is nothing in Article 3 that states they have to do anyting in particular in regards to judges...other than to advise the President about them and then give their consent before they fill their seats...that's it...

Actually there is, as quoted previously, it says in article 2 section 2: "...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,..." Seems fairly clear that the COTUS sets the expectation for the Senate to "advise AND consent" or advise and withhold consent. Either way, they have an obligation to either consent or not, but the option of not addressing at all, I don't think so. The only reason to refuse to act is that they cannot get the votes needed to withhold consent, and the leadership doesn't want the nominee to be confirmed.

Sorry....nothing you posted says they have to do anything...the President shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate doesn't say they have to give consent....they appointee simply can't be confirmed without their consent...again, there is no mandate that they do anything...

I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear. The duty, according to the COTUS, of the Senate is to "advise and consent". Now, they do not have to say "yes" nor do they have to say "no", but they do have the duty to say one or the other. If not, then what, exactly, is the point of the "advise and consent" clause? It was put there for a reason, and IMHO it was to convey that the Senate must act in a reasonable amount of time.

That is erroneous. You are adding something to the Constitution that is not there. Should you continue to disagree, I will continue to wait for the text confirming their obligation to say one or the other, or take any action at all.

All it says is that the president shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

It does not say that the Senate must grant, decline, or even discuss it. It is a power-check on the president, not demand for the Senate to humor him.

I'll try this one more time, and please pay attention to the wording, it is subtle, but important.
"I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear.

You are as clear as you are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one can make the Senate, oldsoul, to hold a hearing or vote or whatever on a nomination.

No one, no thing.

 

[oldsoul]

No one can make the Senate, oldsoul, to hold a hearing or vote or whatever on a nomination.

No one, no thing.

I agree, no one can, except the voters by removing them from office en masse.

 

[oldsoul]

Actually there is, as quoted previously, it says in article 2 section 2: "...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,..." Seems fairly clear that the COTUS sets the expectation for the Senate to "advise AND consent" or advise and withhold consent. Either way, they have an obligation to either consent or not, but the option of not addressing at all, I don't think so. The only reason to refuse to act is that they cannot get the votes needed to withhold consent, and the leadership doesn't want the nominee to be confirmed.

Sorry....nothing you posted says they have to do anything...the President shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate doesn't say they have to give consent....they appointee simply can't be confirmed without their consent...again, there is no mandate that they do anything...

I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear. The duty, according to the COTUS, of the Senate is to "advise and consent". Now, they do not have to say "yes" nor do they have to say "no", but they do have the duty to say one or the other. If not, then what, exactly, is the point of the "advise and consent" clause? It was put there for a reason, and IMHO it was to convey that the Senate must act in a reasonable amount of time.

That is erroneous. You are adding something to the Constitution that is not there. Should you continue to disagree, I will continue to wait for the text confirming their obligation to say one or the other, or take any action at all.

All it says is that the president shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

It does not say that the Senate must grant, decline, or even discuss it. It is a power-check on the president, not demand for the Senate to humor him.

I'll try this one more time, and please pay attention to the wording, it is subtle, but important.
"I'll try to put into other terms so I can be more clear.

You are as clear as you are wrong.

How is it that you believe the Senate does not have a duty to do their job?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This thread is moot anyway because Republicans will not be given the chance to stall anyway

Tipping their intent before the election is not a wise thing to do. Here is what Dems will do once they take the Senate and Hillary wins:

1. Chuck Schumer will use the Republican calls to not even consider Supreme Court nominees as justification to invoke the nuclear option on all judicial nominees

2. Garlands nomination as Justice will be withdrawn

3. Hillary will replace Garland with a younger and more liberal nominee

4. The Senate will quickly review and approve of the new nominee

Rinse and repeat as Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer resign in the next two years

At the very least, the GOP will be able to filibuster in the Senate for the next 4 years.

First thing Schmer will do is invoke the nuclear option requiring 51 votes for confirmation


You guys are going to beg for the days of Harry Reid

He is not going to have 51 votes.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why do you think that?

From The Heritage Foundation

Guide to the Constitution

James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."

Note the bolded word in the quote above.

Why is what they say so important?

I'm not sure what part of this you guys don't understand. The question asked of me was how did I know that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that the Senate WOULD act on these nominations. I gave you a quote from an individual who was involved at the beginning that stated such. Seems pretty clear to me. If you really believe that it was intended to be optional then find me a quote from an individual with similar credentials who states that.

I believe the question being discussed was the existence of an obligation of the Senate to act.

Many things were said by all parties prior to ratification, but only the language agreed to and signed has any authority.

To get an idea of how ludicrous the idea that the Senate has no obligation to act and that only the exact language matters, let's look at another clause in the Constitution:

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Note that this says "may" and not must. Following your logic, the Constitution would allow the Congress to put off holding a presidential election forever just by refusing to ever set a date. Do any of you that support this line of reasoning agree that Congress has no Constitutional requirement to set an election date?

The houses of Congress show their approval or disapproval as bodies/arms of government by voting, not by a small cabal's fiat that denies members of the respective bodies from by vote voicing their position. What we have going on re: the non-voting on Presidential appointees is that essentially one person -- the Senate Majority Leader -- has squelched the voice of 99 other Senators by denying them the opportunity to vote yay or nay on those appointments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not a thing you can do about it, 320.

That is Mitch's call: no one else's.

The Senate could pass a resolution to bring the nomination forward, but you have to get it on the agenda, and guess who controls that?

 

[oldsoul]

Not a thing you can do about it, 320.

That is Mitch's call: no one else's.

The Senate could pass a resolution to bring the nomination forward, but you have to get it on the agenda, and guess who controls that?

That's exactly what is wrong with Washington right now. The powerful can, and do, impose their will on those less powerful, either by doing their jobs (when they have the votes) or not (when they don't). See, as far as I can tell, very little is put on the agenda that the leadership doesn't already have a reasonably certain concept of how it will play out in the end. That is not how our founders envisioned it to work, IMHO. We live in a representative republic where the will of the people will, ultimately be heard and obeyed, not the will of the most powerful and influential. Congress, through their rules and by-laws, have imposed this on all of us without so much as a "fuck you, I don't care what you want, I'm in charge here". That is why I seriously doubt I will ever vote for an incumbent, a Democrat, or a Republican ever again, I would rather abstain from voting. "By the people, for the people..." requires a regular change in leadership, and a complete lack of career politicians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, yes, most of the Founders had served on legislatures and executive committees, some for many years.

They knew exactly how it worked.

We have here something like Boss Cannon did in the House a hundred years ago, and it will require a revolt of Senate members in both parties to put a stop to it.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Tennyson]

It is at the Senate's discretion if they want to have a hearing or not. This is not the first time a lame-duck President's Supreme Court nomination was not voted on. It happened at the end of John Quincy Adams' tenure. The Senate rejected an amendment to force a vote and approved an amendment that do not have to vote on a Supreme Court nominee. To the best of my knowledge, that amendment still stands.