Wow! Mcconnell vows to vote on nominee!

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
24,209
Reaction score
5,248
Points
290
Location
Colorado
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.

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.
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.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
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.

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,
So?
Yep, you got nothing. I proved you wrong.
Exactly what was I wrong on? Be specific.
This should be fun.
Um how about instead you explain why you said “so?”?
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
69,518
Reaction score
12,600
Points
2,180

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
Who?

What if Trump says "let's wait until after the election"? That is going to ensure they ALL vote. Even the RINOS will be cornered.

If Trump does it before, he chooses a woman and gains more female votes. He's in a win/win situation.
Voters will look at it as a complete betrayal by MCConnell, who said 10 months before election is too close before an election to make such a decision. They will take it out on Senate Republicans and on trump.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
 

SassyIrishLass

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
66,736
Reaction score
24,347
Points
2,250
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
Things have changed.

Fuck the Communists.
This is going to be a chaotic shit show
No question. I already feel sorry for the nominee. Democrats will make up horrific claims about him/her and insist their lies are fact.

You know -- like they always do.
Just remember Kavanaugh....same shit different nominee
It'll be even worse.

And even less credible.

But that won't stop them. They'll be desperate.
Agreed. What they pulled on Kavanaugh was despicable
 

EL Rich

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
359
Reaction score
114
Points
180
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
Things have changed.

Fuck the Communists.
This is going to be a chaotic shit show
No question. I already feel sorry for the nominee. Democrats will make up horrific claims about him/her and insist their lies are fact.

You know -- like they always do.
Just remember Kavanaugh....same shit different nominee
No no, this will be a whole new shit-show! Kavanaugh hearing plus armed radicals and loons claiming they know the truth! Left, right doesn’t matter. They care about ideology, they care about themselves and they care about what they want. Notice I didn’t mention our country! Our nation has been built on compromises and for the first time in my lifetime our two parties have both painted themselves into corners.
Write In, Adm. William McRaven (Ret), he may be our only hope.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,011
Reaction score
13,629
Points
2,415
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.

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.
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.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
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.

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,
So?
Yep, you got nothing. I proved you wrong.
Exactly what was I wrong on? Be specific.
This should be fun.
Um how about instead you explain why you said “so?”?
Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,887
Reaction score
12,079
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
Things have changed.

Fuck the Communists.
This is going to be a chaotic shit show
No question. I already feel sorry for the nominee. Democrats will make up horrific claims about him/her and insist their lies are fact.

You know -- like they always do.
Just remember Kavanaugh....same shit different nominee
No no, this will be a whole new shit-show! Kavanaugh hearing plus armed radicals and loons claiming they know the truth! Left, right doesn’t matter. They care about ideology, they care about themselves and they care about what they want. Notice I didn’t mention our country! Our nation has been built on compromises and for the first time in my lifetime our two parties have both painted themselves into corners.
Write In, Adm. William McRaven (Ret), he may be our only hope.
PUT A COMMIE ON THE BENCH OR WE'LL BURN YOUR CITIES
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
31,618
Reaction score
15,896
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
Who?

What if Trump says "let's wait until after the election"? That is going to ensure they ALL vote. Even the RINOS will be cornered.

If Trump does it before, he chooses a woman and gains more female votes. He's in a win/win situation.
Voters will look at it as a complete betrayal by MCConnell, who said 10 months before election is too close before an election to make such a decision. They will take it out on Senate Republicans and on trump.
Are you claiming McConnell doesn’t have the right to pause the confirmation and vote on a SCOTUS nomination?
He has that right. One would expect the rules of the Senate wouldn't change based on the the party of the President however.
The Constitution hasn’t changed. The President has the power to appoint a Justice. The Senate is to counsel and confirm. Nothing has changed from 2016 and now. Nothing prevented Obama from nominating someone. The Senate had the power to confirm, or not to. They chose not to. To claim they must do the same for an entirely different nominee is absurd.
 

Death-Ninja

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,182
Reaction score
1,913
Points
1,908
Location
Hayward Wisconsin
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.

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.
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.

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 were just in another thread bleating & whining about how immature the conservatives in that thread were in discussing the marvelous news of this evil women's extinction, and two minutes later here you are acting like little baby girl(you are probably a tranny something or other), bleating out the most childish and ill-informed idiocy about how unfair and unconstitutional Mcconnell was with Garland! Its patently obvious you are stupid, and totally out of the loop as to what the constitution is and how it is worked, further you don't read well either. Obama and his fascists didn't control the senate when the Garland nomination was made dumbass, and no opposition party senate has/had confirmed an opposition party presidents scotus nomination in an election year since the 1880's! Geez, Trump is a republican, and the senate majority is also republican! Checkmate dumbass, now go and bleat your whining imbecility somewhere else.... :fu:
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,458
Points
2,165
There will be a vote. The nominee will probably be ratified. The WH and the Senate will go blue, and then the Senate will add six new seats to SCOTUS.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
4,407
Points
210

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
At this point, the leftist hatred of Trump is so irrational he could nominate Obama and they'd fight it to the death.
You are absolutely right, this time. No way they will trust trump to make a moderate nominee, because they know he will not. He will put somebody that distinctly right of center. Somebody above said think of it like the Kavanaugh hearing, except with guns and knives. In the end, trumps nominee will be confirmed. It is what trump has to do, as any president would do. McConnell and the Senate will take the blame for pushing it through. Trump and 23 Republican Senators will be punished at the polls. Amazing, trump and McConnell (McConnell who blocked even a hearing on Obama's nominee 10 months out from an election) will just be playing the cards dealt, but they will be punished none the less, and Senate Republicans along with them.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,798
Reaction score
10,767
Points
1,410
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
That was before the left turned out to be such a bunch of batshit crazy assholes.

He damn well better vote on one.
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
959
Reaction score
911
Points
888

Whodatsaywhodat.

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
959
Reaction score
911
Points
888
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement hours after Scalia died in February 2016. - Mitch McConnell
That was before the left turned out to be such a bunch of batshit crazy assholes.

He damn well better vote on one.
Amen , they let the cat out of the bag . Vote now .
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,798
Reaction score
10,767
Points
1,410
Yet just a few short years ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday flatly rejected any person President Barack Obama nominates to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, saying the voters should decide.
Guess what ?

We owned the senate then.

Here's another point.

We own it now.

Go fuck yourself.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
49,596
Reaction score
15,919
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
It fully follows the Constituton for Trump to name a nominee and the nominee to get voted on.

Now some Senate Repulicans may flip, but there should be a vote.

Obama and Schumer would do it, we all know it.
The left are already freaking out and threatening violence. Trump has a constitutional right to nominate a replacement and the Senate has a Constitutional right to confirm.
 

conserveguy877

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
5,461
Reaction score
1,393
Points
195
Trump's poll numbers approve. It's the unhinged demos who cannot realize it's time for change.
 

blackhawk

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
27,991
Reaction score
7,961
Points
280
Location
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The President nominates Supreme Court Justices rather or not they get confirmed or a hearing is up to the Senate. Lets not forget then Senator Biden and current Senator Schumer both floated the idea of blocking election year Supreme Court nomination under the George H.W. Bush and George W Bush Presidency's rather they would have done it we will never no as no seat opend up during that time. Lets not pretend if the Democrats had still held the Senate in 2016 they would have waited till after the election to confirm Merrick Garland or if they controlled the Senate now they wouldn't block Trump hypocrisy is one of the few things both parties excel at it.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,798
Reaction score
10,767
Points
1,410

This is going to start a whole new round of crazy!


Jo
He really has no choice politically. If he doesn't put a butt in that seat, the Democrats probably take the Senate because clearly that is the prize. They may take it anyway but instead of academic ideas about what a Democratic Controlled Senate would do...it would be you elect this...you get that or you get 4 years of "no" if the blob wins. The hypocrisy may cost R's the senate but he'll keep his seat. He may lose that if he were to not be a hypocrite.
This will motivate every voter to get out and vote. Suspect they will have control of Supreme Court, but not likely to win the Presidency or keep the Senate.
It should. But it won't.
Welcome to the world of consequences associated with nominating a political harlot to head your ticket.

Hello Surpement Court Justice Ted Cruz !!!!
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
24,209
Reaction score
5,248
Points
290
Location
Colorado
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.

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.
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.

Oh and also don’t forget Mitch’s blatant hypocrisy about election years and voting on judges. He’s a sociopath without any principles.
What part of the Constitution did he violate?

Be specific and quote the actual Constitution Billy000
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.

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,
So?
Yep, you got nothing. I proved you wrong.
Exactly what was I wrong on? Be specific.
This should be fun.
Um how about instead you explain why you said “so?”?
Thanks for admitting you are a liar.
That’s what I thought. I have to do all the heavy lifting for this argument while you say “so?”.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top