Remind us howthe Senate MUST vote on Garland again?

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Not according to Biden, Reid, Obama or Schumer

They are as wrong as McConnel and his ilk.

 

[bendog]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

You're altering your own thread. LOL

 

[Dot Com]

There can only be a good outcome for the Dems. Its expected that w/ the Trumpster at the top of the ticket, Dems will make gains in the Congress.

 

[HenryBHough]

Those are your silly words, not mine. The Senate has a "duty" to fulfill its Constitutional role. You are not the word meme here, only the silly man.

I'm surprised to see one so lacking in reading comprehension somehow continue to read words that aren't there. Nowhere in The (former) Constitution is there a time-frame specified for The Senate to do anything about the childish whims of a failed "president". Or of any other president for that matter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

You're altering your own thread. LOL

You claim the Constitution REQUIRES a vote I am pointing out that in fact NO ONE on the left in politics actually believes that. be specific again remind us verse passage section and article of the Constitution that requires a vote to deny a nomination. Then remind us who actually ever did that themselves.

Your own party AGREES by word deed and action over the years that no vote is actually required to NOT approve a nomination. Including the current members of Congress the current President and Vice President and the current democratic party.

 

[bendog]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Not according to Biden, Reid, Obama or Schumer

They are as wrong as McConnel and his ilk.

Schumer said they should vote, but vote no. And, he's not the only person who thinks Roberts and Alito lied at confirmation hearings. But, I think that cuts both ways. Still, he said give the nominee a vote.

Biden didn't say don't advise, he said a bipartisan candidate should be found in such and instance. And, he's right. The Nevada gop governor should have been embraced by the gop, but .... he's pro choice (and pro gun, btw) Biden did say that if a Justice died or retired just months before an election it looked like his party was sure to lose, then no action would be justified. But, Scalia died with nearly a year to go. That's closer to Justice Kennedy.

Reid did suggest filibustering Alito.

 

[bendog]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

You're altering your own thread. LOL

You claim the Constitution REQUIRES a vote I am pointing out that in fact NO ONE on the left in politics actually believes that. be specific again remind us verse passage section and article of the Constitution that requires a vote to deny a nomination. Then remind us who actually ever did that themselves.

Your own party AGREES by word deed and action over the years that no vote is actually required to NOT approve a nomination. Including the current members of Congress the current President and Vice President and the current democratic party.

I think the constitution requires hearings. It requires "adivise." After hearings, there may not be enough votes to even get to an up or down vote, depending on filibuster. The dems did that to two on Nixon's appointments.

I'm not a dem, and you haven't a focking clue as to what Obama, Reid, Biden or Shumer actually said.

 

[Arianrhod]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Wrong. It's totally up to the Senate. The president is required to obtain their consent for his nominees. They are free to withhold it.

What the Senate has done so far, aside from acting like petulant children (small wonder USMB RWs identify with them), is to fail those Christian employers who did not want to provide coverage for contraception for their employees:

Supreme Court Punts on Big ObamaCare Ruling

Now, let's see how many of you misinterpret this...

 

[Dot Com]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Wrong. It's totally up to the Senate. The president is required to obtain their consent for his nominees. They are free to withhold it.

What the Senate has done so far, aside from acting like petulant children (small wonder USMB RWs identify with them), is to fail those Christian employers who did not want to provide coverage for contraception for their employees:

Supreme Court Punts on Big ObamaCare Ruling

Now, let's see how many of you misinterpret this...

Ironic isnt it? Just to deny the black guy from doing his job

 

[OldLady]

I'll wait for Hillary to nominate Obama, thank you.

Oh, that would serve the bastards right!

 

[JakeStarkey]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

The Constitution is quite clear that the senate must advise and consent. It does not say anything else. You want to quote the portion where you think it does not do that? Go right ahead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are your silly words, not mine. The Senate has a "duty" to fulfill its Constitutional role. You are not the word meme here, only the silly man.

I'm surprised to see one so lacking in reading comprehension somehow continue to read words that aren't there. Nowhere in The (former) Constitution is there a time-frame specified for The Senate to do anything about the childish whims of a failed "president". Or of any other president for that matter.

A time frame, my word challenged friend, is not required. An advise and consent (active concept) is required. Give me the exact portion of the Constitution that you think supports your position

 

[OldLady]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Provide the relevant section of the Constitution that REQUIRES the Senate to vote on this man. The requirement is that before a Supreme Court Nominee can assume office the Senate must approve, there is NO requirement that the Senate chooses to not approve that requires a vote.

The Senate must give advice and consent (or lack of it) on nominations. You know it, I know it, so your demand is silly.

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

Read it again retard. It command no such thing, it simply states the Senate was advice and consent. meaning to appoint one must be approved to not appoint one need only refuse to agree. No vote needed. I repeat provide us the section and article that commands the Senate to vote in the negative.

I think common sense tells us that once elected to the Senate, a senator does those jobs outlined under the constitution. He or she is not there just to pick their nose and undermine the president.

 

[CowboyTed]

Some seem to want the Congress to do nothing, and Congress seems to be listening to them.
Meanwhile, Congress continues to pay itself. Taking money for not doing one's job would be classified as...what, exactly?

That's unfair on Congress....

The work very hard on kissing ass for money for the next election.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

The Constitution is quite clear that the senate must advise and consent. It does not say anything else. You want to quote the portion where you think it does not do that? Go right ahead.

Must advice and consent, all that is required is a vote to approve, If the Senate does not wish a nomination to be approved there is no language and no requirement to vote on it Consent re\quires a vote to NOT consent does not as is established by the entire HISTORY of the Senate.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

Regardless, they should vote on him. Chickenshit move when the Dems did it, chickenshit move on. If the guy isn't a qualified candidate , vote him down. Problem solved.

But of course the chickenshits in the Senate are trying to have their cake and eat it to.

 

[Nosmo King]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

If you live by the constitution, you must obey the constitution. The President nominates Supreme Court justices. The President enjoys a term of FOUR YEARS.

For the Republican leadership to ignore the last year of a President's term is tantamount to ignoring the constitution.. We elect senators to serve six year terms and conduct the business of the people. Why are they refusing to conduct that business? Why, a fit of political pique, that's why!

Advise and consent. That's in the constitution. The senate Republican leadership is derelict in its duty.

 

[bendog]

Provide the relevant section of the Constitution that REQUIRES the Senate to vote on this man. The requirement is that before a Supreme Court Nominee can assume office the Senate must approve, there is NO requirement that the Senate chooses to not approve that requires a vote.

The Senate must give advice and consent (or lack of it) on nominations. You know it, I know it, so your demand is silly.

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

Read it again retard. It command no such thing, it simply states the Senate was advice and consent. meaning to appoint one must be approved to not appoint one need only refuse to agree. No vote needed. I repeat provide us the section and article that commands the Senate to vote in the negative.

I think common sense tells us that once elected to the Senate, a senator does those jobs outlined under the constitution. He or she is not there just to pick their nose and undermine the president.

Well, he or she can undermine. They may vote no. They may even filibuster to prevent a vote.

Imo, during my lifetime there were two major political hits to the Court. The first was when Abe Fortas was rejected by the Senate. Between some in the gop and the southern dems, he didn't make it out of filibuster. It was a bad nomination. But it left the liberal dems with a bitter taste.

Nixon then nominated Burger. And in exchange for Fortas, the dems successfully filibustered two Nixon appointees with questions on racial segregation.

The second was Bork. Bork was hostile to Griswold and Roe, civil rights, the current view of the 14th ..... and he was fairly honest about it. No nominee has been honest since.

 

[bendog]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

Regardless, they should vote on him. Chickenshit move when the Dems did it, chickenshit move on. If the guy isn't a qualified candidate , vote him down. Problem solved.

But of course the chickenshits in the Senate are trying to have their cake and eat it to.

When did the dems actually do this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?

The Constitution is quite clear that the senate must advise and consent. It does not say anything else. You want to quote the portion where you think it does not do that? Go right ahead.

Must advice and consent, all that is required is a vote to approve, If the Senate does not wish a nomination to be approved there is no language and no requirement to vote on it Consent re\quires a vote to NOT consent does not as is established by the entire HISTORY of the Senate.

That is your conclusion, and you are wrong.