maybe Hillary can show us some video evidence of a Republican stopping a democrat from voting?
Here you go:
Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee
The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.
Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.
"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and
numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional
obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution
contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion
that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause
does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding
of the term."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf
I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page,
"This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]
I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;
"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]
In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.
The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in
Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,
unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]
That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.
In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action
CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.
There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.
Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.
"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992
"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005
"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012
By now we have all heard one of her most recent rants regarding how Republicans are blocking/stopping dead people, Hispanics, the disabled, black and brown people, illegal aliens, trans-gendered, the terminally stupid, house pets, etc. etc. from either registering to vote or just attempting to vote in the primaries.
