- Nov 10, 2011
- Reaction score
Um how about instead you explain why you said “so?”?Exactly what was I wrong on? Be specific.Yep, you got nothing. I proved you wrong.So?In the 2016 election year, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that no language in the Appointments Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the Senate to give any nominee a vote and that the Senate’s power to refuse consent under that clause implies the authority to determine whether, and under what political circumstances, actual consideration of a nominee should occur. This Article contends that the text of Article II actually provides a surprising level of guidance in discerning the respective powers of President and Senate in the appointment process. Specifically, it concludes that ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important, requirements for what Senate consideration must entail. Specifically, it observes that settled understandings of the Senate’s rule-making authority require that the Senate provide a process by which a President’s nominee could plausibly be confirmed. This Article will also examine how the Constitution’s original framers, advocates and opponents understood the distribution of power between the branches set forth in the Appointments Clause. By evaluating the instant constitutional problem with primary reference to a semantic analysis of the text—and thereafter exploring the reliability of those conclusions with reference to original understandings of that text—this Article’s interpretive framework conforms to the interpretive approach fervently preached by Justice Scalia and usually praised by the leadership of the 114th Senate.What part of the Constitution did he violate?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.
Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2—both understood in whole and in its parts—requires the Senate to consider a President’s nominees. It posits further that the Constitution’s language implies some modest, but important,
This should be fun.