SingleVoyce
Senior Member
- Dec 29, 2015
- 139
- 14
- 56
- Thread starter
- #41
Why do you think that?According to whom?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"
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
From The Heritage Foundation
Guide to the Constitution
James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."
Note the bolded word in the quote above.