Remind us howthe Senate MUST vote on Garland again?

[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?

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.

You could understand what he typed? Either something necessary got accidentally edited or he didn't have a complete thought.

 

[HenryBHough]

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

Alas the reading comprehension fairy flew right over when it was Jammie-boi's turn! Correct. There is NO mention of a time-frame for Senate action anywhere in The (former) Constitution. Sure advice is required and the word "consent" is misused to be thought of as a rubber stamp....but only by the most Constituting-hating of liberals. But show me where any time limit is set.

But you won't because:

1. There is no time limit set.

2. Liberals (Ino matter how much they try to pass themselves off as Republicans) are so bone lazy they won't even look at The (former) Constitution to see whether they have anything other than an easy-open backflap on their jammies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An Henry B. gets gabby and confused.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where does it use the word "must?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Where does it use the word "must?"

Don't need "must". Advise and consent are active verbs. Thus the Senate will advise and consent.

 

[bripat9643]

HRC will have no difficulty in debating Donnie.

Trump will beat her like a baby seal and watch her dissolve into a puddle of tears.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where does it use the word "must?"

Don't need "must". Advise and consent are active verbs. Thus the Senate will advise and consent.

In other words, it doesn't say "must."

Thanks for playing!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You lost. Again. poor bripat.

 

[sonic]

Grassley is sure taking a hit in the polls on this one. Even his home state papers are on his case. The latest CNN poll shows 67% of Americans want the hearings to take place. Like I said, Garland will be confirmed soon after Hillary wins the election (spare me the "Trump is going to win" nonsense - that's a pipe dream), then she'll get another 2-3 picks during her Presidency.

 

[Timmy]

Let's say Trump wins and the senate is dems . Why would they ever bother to vote ?

 

[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.

When did the dems actually do this?

The Dems obviously did this, in fact BIden was the front man at the time. But I'll waste no more time with someone who pretends otherwise.

 

[HenryBHough]

Where does it use the word "must?"

Don't need "must". Advise and consent are active verbs. Thus the Senate will advise and consent.[/QUOTE]

Or not.

They should "advise", when they find a little time. Perhaps to take His toyboy and shove him where sun don't shine.

But "Consent"? These days consent implies acceptance. Back in the day it implied the option to accept or reject. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Timmy]

How far do u take this ? Say two more Judges go down. The senate can just refuse to entertain a nominee and effectively contract the Supreme Court indefinately because they like the makeup?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Well, he or she can undermine. They may vote no. They may even filibuster to prevent a vote.
That would be fine with me. They may vote no or even filibuster. That's called doing their job.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Duty goes further than that which we are forced to do by threat of punishment.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Duty goes further than that which we are forced to do by threat of punishment.

Not when it comes to government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Duty goes further than that which we are forced to do by threat of punishment.

Not when it comes to government.

Because you say, little anarchist?

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Duty goes further than that which we are forced to do by threat of punishment.

Not when it comes to government.

Oh really? Then I guess that Obama has not duty to enforce immigration laws. After all, the constitution doesn't prescribe a punishment. Therefore, there is no duty.

 

[SwimExpert]

Congress has no duty to control spending. There's no punishment in the constitution, therefore there is no duty.