- Jul 19, 2014
- Reaction score
Are you nuts?And again, the Constitution does not state what form "Advise," is supposed to take.......and telling the President we don't want that guy and we aren't voting for him is pretty much advising him his pick isn't getting consent.....Maybe,The Senate gave no Advise and Consent, as the Constitution dictates? So how was what Mitch did to nominee Garland, constitutional?So theoretically, the Senate could never appoint another justice or judge...ever in your world right?Let’s not forget Mitch BLOCKED the senate from even having a vote on Garland even though it was blatantly unconstitutional. I’m sure republicans are thrilled at Ginsburg’s passing. Them winning is all that matters to them.You go, Mitch!
No reason to not replace her now.
McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.
“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said in a statement Friday.
“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”
McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”
“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87
In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely “fill it.”
McConnell’s comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.
McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'Senate Republicans have signaled that they would likely fill a vacancy to the Supreme Court ahead of the presidential election, but it is unclear whether the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will change their stance.www.foxnews.com
Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.
Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.
You are an idiot.....it was perfectly constitutional, you moron....the Constitution does not say the Senate is a rubber stamp for Presidential nominees...it says advice and consent....they have the power to deny the nominee if they want....that is how the founders separated powers to diminish the acquisition of power by any one branch....you doofus.
There is a difference between denying a nominee--voting them down---and not having a vote at all.
Yep........that is how it was designed, it was a check on Presidential and Court power.......there is no difference....the Senate was given that power for a reason.
The Constitution doesn't say the consent is by taking a vote....not taking a vote is showing they do not consent to the nomination.
I can see that perhaps being the case...
but they never went through the Advice/Advise part, which are the hearings, before the consent part?? Seems back assward?
If obama had put up a real justice pick they would have consented without a problem....but he didn't.
Garland was a superb pick! Why do you think McConnell held out on hearings and a vote?
Because there were several Republicans in the Senate that would have voted for Garland, and he would have been confirmed, with the Republican support to break the filibuster.
That's the only reason Mitch did not even bring him up for hearings.
No...he would have been another left wing activist wearing robes.....
Sure, weak Republicans may have voted for him with the stupid "Reaching Across the aisle" bull crap....but keeping him off the bench was a great thing.......