CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[SingleVoyce]

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?

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

There is no constitutional obligation to act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

 

[SingleVoyce]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

"One" might be able to argue that but I have a high degree of confidence that was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

"One" might be able to argue that but I have a high degree of confidence that was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution.

elaborate

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

Up to interpretation.

 

[martybegan]

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?

It's simple. Some of us believe that the Courts have gone so far out of their mandate, applying broad personal opinions and slapping together multiple degrees of jigger-pokery to create rights out of thin air, and deny rights clearly listed in the document. The courts are legislating, not interpreting. Thus measures not seen before need to be taken.

That being said all of what Senators like Cruz is saying is still within the bounds of the document. It gives no timeline, no procedure, just "advice and consent".

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

Up to interpretation.

Good idea

Lets bring it up to the courts

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

It's the Schumer precedent.

Look up what Schumer, Reid and Kerry said about Bush's late term nominations

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Had Obama nominated someone like Scalia, they'd be confirmed

 

[JakeStarkey]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

 

[rightwinger]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

It would take a Republican President

Ain't gunna happen

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

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

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

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

Why do you think that?

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

Up to interpretation.

Good idea

Lets bring it up to the courts

And there lies the problem.

 

[2aguy]

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?

They are required to advise and consent...that doesn't mandate that they give consent only that they are the ones who allow the nominee to go foward..they are not forced to vote on anyone......and the number of justices is not fixed in stone.....the President doesn't set the number, congress does...

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

Up to interpretation.

Good idea

Lets bring it up to the courts

The courts do not control their makeup or membershipl..that is a check on judicial tyranny....Congress decides those issues.