Hot Mic Catches Trump Lashing Out Over Failed Picks: 'I Can't Appoint Anybody!'

[PeanutGallery]

Speaking of pulling words out of your ass…

It wasn’t “scheduling”, it was the Majority Leader refusing to advance the process.

But hey justify the hypocrisy.

WW

Here's the text of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2,

He 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The question here is where in the Constitution does it say that if the President nominates someone to be a judge of the Supreme Court, the Senate HAS TO advance the process past the advice stage in advice and consent. Because if such an ultimatum can't be found, then you can't blast Mitch for saying that Garland isn't going to get a vote because he won't pass or other reason.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's the text of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2,

He 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The question here is where in the Constitution does it say that if the President nominates someone to be a judge of the Supreme Court, the Senate HAS TO advance the process past the advice stage in advice and consent. Because if such an ultimatum can't be found, then you can't blast Mitch for saying that Garland isn't going to get a vote because he won't pass or other reason.

Then the Blue Chip Senate process can’t be “blasted” either.

BTW - the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, not the majority leader.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Speaking of pulling words out of your ass…
It wasn’t “scheduling”, it was the Majority Leader refusing to advance the process.
But hey justify the hypocrisy. WW

Actually you're describing "The Biden Rule".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually you're describing "The Biden Rule".

Try going back and listening to what Biden said. He suggested to wait until after the summer and elections. Then hold confirmation hearings for a vote.

He did not suggest leaving a SCOTUS seat vacant for over a year waiting for the next President to be sworn in.

WW

 

[PeanutGallery]

Then the Blue Chip Senate process can’t be “blasted” either.

BTW - the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, not the majority leader.

WW

The majority leader determines what goes on the floor for a vote, right? If Mitch knew that Garland didn't have the votes to be confirmed as a SC judge, why waste people's time with a dog and pony show? The advice coming from the majority leader representing the majority party is to choose somebody else.

You're right that the Blue Chip Senate process can't be blasted ... on the condition that you can show that it's more than just a Senate rule but enshrined in the Constitution. The Blue Chip Senate process (for those who don't know) is when the two Senators from the home state of a nominee write opinions as to whether or not they have a favorable opinion of a judicial nominee. In Hannigan's case, that state is Colorado. Both Senators are democrats. Quelle surprise that an unfavorable opinion has been given the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, there have been federal judges appointed under democrat and republican administrations where the nominee didn't have the favorable opinions of both Senators. So, while this may be a headache for Trump, it doesn't necessarily prevents her from going through the nomination stage.