Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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...
"Doing nothing" is not an option. They advise and consent. They have done neither.
"Do some research."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported. Frankly, it should be the Republicans here who need to find legislative historical support from the Founding Fathers that says the current tack of the Republican senate is within constitutional parameters. And the simple fact is, you can't.
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...
"Doing nothing" is not an option. They advise and consent. They have done neither.
"Do some research."
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported. Frankly, it should be the Republicans here who need to find legislative historical support from the Founding Fathers that says the current tack of the Republican senate is within constitutional parameters. And the simple fact is, you can't.
What is the language of the Constitution?
Moving goalposts much? The question was about "intent".
Indeed. The language that was voted upon clearly indicates the intent. The Constitution as signed as the national agreement is law.
Want to change it? Add or subtract? You know the drill.
Until then, the Senate has no obligation to act.
Correct, and the senate is required to give advice and consent to the presidential nominee.
Please post the text mandating that requirement. It's about the tenth time I've asked.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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 word "shall" is a synonym for "must" in this context. At no point does it state that the Senate "shall" do nothing.
Why do you think that?According to whom?
I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best
But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies
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.
You understand that those are his words and are not in the Constitution? Surely you must.
The question was about the framers' intent. That document speaks to their intent.
What part of "Consent" mandates how they determine their consent? Nothing in that makes them meet with anyone, or hold hearings....they just have to say yes or no and how they get there they make up on their own...
NAILED IT. THANK YOU!
They have said NEITHER yes, NOR no. They have done nothing.
They have said no action will be taken.
Indeed, and that's not an option in the Constitution. It was never contemplated by the framers. Ever. The "do nothing" position is totally unsupported.
Lacking a requirement to take action, said position needs no support.
The word "shall" is operative for both the president AND the Senate in the text of Article II.
It's unsettled law at this point.
The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?
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...
At the very least, the GOP will be able to filibuster in the Senate for the next 4 years.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
On the other hand it was never the intent of the Founding Freemasons to ever have a hag like Ginsberg on the court either.I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best
But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies
Why do you think that?According to whom?
I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best
But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies
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.
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.It's unsettled law at this point.
The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?
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...
On the other hand it was never the intent of the Founding Freemasons to ever have a hag like Ginsberg on the court either.I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best
But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies
Every SCOTUS nomination currently on the High Court from the DEM's has proved to be an activist who is in defiance of the Constitution.
At the very least, the GOP will be able to filibuster in the Senate for the next 4 years.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
The Senate is charged with keeping a reign on the POTUS.
.
Why do you think that?I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best
But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies
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.
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?
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.It's unsettled law at this point.
The Senate can do as it wishes until SCOTUS opines, but in this case, the Senate can do as it wishes, and who is to stop it?
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...
