McConnell: ‘Senate Will Withhold’ Consent of Any Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
    says the Senate will “withhold” consent of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
    The Republican leader said on the Senate floor the new president should choose the nominee who replaces Justice Antonin Scalia, who died February 13.

    “Presidents have the right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ill-withhold-consent-of-obama-scotus-nominee/
     
  2. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    And they will lose control of the Senate and the White House and President Clinton, II will appoint the liberal that she wants to the court.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Nothing new here. McConnell will go down in history as the senator who had a one word vocabulary, "NO!".

    I think this will cost the GOP in the upcoming election. It is such an abandonment of their Constitutional responsibility.
     
  4. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Based on past actions, I ain't holding my breath!:mad:
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Really? please school us as to what the Constitution says that we can understand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    298
    McConnell will fold. He always does.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    And here I thought you were a stick to the Constitution man. Guess you are not.

    GOP senators should do their duty, either accept or reject the appointment. To simply sit, leaving the court short of justices while so many important issues are before the country is irresponsible.


    From: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-advice-and-consent-clause/

    The Advice and consent clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the President can exercise his/her power to enter into treaties with other countries only with the advice and consent of the Senate. This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

    “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”.
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    So, you have not answered my question yet. I will ask again. Where in the constitution does it demand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.
     
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Those who are too blind to see will never see.

    Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has the right to abandon their responsibilities? They are to advise and either approve or disapprove. The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    So you want to argue from silence. Actually what it means is that the Senate has the freedom to handle this as they see fit. The benefit from this is the President needs to work with the Senate to come up with a candidate that everyone can get behind instead of one of the far left radicals who care nothing about our founding or our constitution.
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    1. No president has ever "worked with the Senate" on the next Supreme Court nominee. That is not in the Constitution.

    Can you image any GOP candidate becoming president and consulting with the Democrats who should be a Supreme Court nominee? The consulting is done in the hearings, not before the nominee is selected.

    2. I argue not from silence as you want to claim, but from the Constitution which you now want to set aside and ignore.

    3. If the GOP does not like the nominee they can turn it down. But not to act at all is complete irresponsibility.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790


    If the President wants to get a candidate through he should consult with them first. Otherwise what happens is it becomes a big political game. As far as it not being in the constitution that is incorrect. The Senate has to give consent.

    Saying "The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing" is arguing from silence.




    Nothing in the constitution says they need to even bring the Presidents nominee up for a vote. Refusal to do so is just another way of not giving consent. Not sure why I need to explain that.
     
  14. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Well said. But as you mentioned before, this will probably cost them control of the Senate and then President Clinton, II will appoint the person she wants to the court.

    This is the proverbial shoot yourself in the foot play by the GOP especially the more it looks like Donald Trump will be their Presidential nominee.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Rev. can you imagine any Republican president consulting with a Democratic controlled congress about who he should nominate as a Supreme Court justice?
     
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    The GOP seems to have a circular firing squad.
     
  17. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Is that how it worked for Biden when he declared in '92 that the Senate would not vote on any Bush (1)'s appointee to the court? or when Obama filibustered any Bush (2) appointee?
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Why did Obama violate the constitution, boy? He didn't nominate anyone yesterday!
     
  19. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    That's a stupid strategy and an even more stupid thing to declare. Aren't these dumb Republicans considering who is going to be making the picks if the Dems win in November? They should keep their options open in the event that Obama does come up with an acceptable nominee.

    They're going to keep on with this stupid stuff and lose seats in November.
     
  20. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    266
    With the Sandoval rumors, I heard some people say the Senate should consider him, and consent if Hilary wins. But if a Republican wins, then deny him and wait for the new president.
     

Share This Page

Loading...