CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[2aguy]

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?

Such grasping. Apples and screwdrivers.

Note that the word "shall" here in the pertinent paragraph applies to the President, not the Senate.

[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.

It is like that little part of the 2nd Amendment the left wing just can't seem to see..."Shall not be infringed" ......they don't see that part either....

 

[JakeStarkey]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Such grasping. Apples and screwdrivers.

Note that the word "shall" here in the pertinent paragraph applies to the President, not the Senate.

[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.

It is like that little part of the 2nd Amendment the left wing just can't seem to see..."Shall not be infringed" ......they don't see that part either....

No one wants your hand gun.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

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...

And the GOP is absolutely determined to do nothing.

They are very qualified for that.

 

[Syriusly]

The Senate could put off a vote or hearing forever if it wanted to.

There is no power in the Constitution to make it hold a hearing for a SCOTUS nomination if it did want to.

Who could make the Senate do it?

Only the voters. Only the voters.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Republicans in Congress have decided there is one branch of government, the Congress, that can hold the other two branches hostage.

It will end soon as their grip on reality and power are both slipping away permanently. It's a slow burn.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

On the other hand it was never the intent of the Founding Freemasons to ever have a hag like Ginsberg on the court either.

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.

Of course the founders never would have tolerated a woman or a black man like Thomas

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans in Congress have decided there is one branch of government, the Congress, that can hold the other two branches hostage.

It will end soon as their grip on reality and power are both slipping away permanently. It's a slow burn.

The Executive Branch is the only functioning branch right now as Republicans have gridlocked Congress and the SCOTUS

 

[320 Years of History]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

I wish I understood why it is that Senators (the majority leader) refuse to just hold the damn vote. They'll likely refuse to affirm the nomination. Fine. Just friggin' do it and move on. What they're doing now is making the damn nomination and "issue" instead of "putting it to bed." That's what they are there to do, so why they won't do it is beyond me. By not voting at all, even if the vote is "nay," they are just giving us a fine illustration of Congress' intransigence and refusal to get things done. Congressional gridlock is among the most annoying things that goes on in D.C. and not voting on Justices is one manifestation of it that need not exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

I did.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

I did.

Post the post #. There are 14 pages.

If you don't, I'll chalk it up to a lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In time of war, if the President can't get a SCOTUS nomination, he could appoint a SCOTUS judge if the Senate is being obstructionist.

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

I did.

Post the post #. There are 14 pages.

If you don't, I'll chalk it up to a lie.

Don't care. Go look it up.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You're trippin'. Stop it.

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

I did.

Post the post #. There are 14 pages.

If you don't, I'll chalk it up to a lie.

Don't care. Go look it up.

As I said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. That is one way to get around it.

Post the particulars.

I did.

Post the post #. There are 14 pages.

If you don't, I'll chalk it up to a lie.

Don't care. Go look it up.

As I said.

As I said.

If you are not reading, you are not doing your due diligence. You are just a lazy sod, like most of the far right.

 

[oldsoul]

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...

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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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...

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.