Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Mar 29, 2016.
Can you quote the section of the constitution that says Congress is required to vote on the Presidential nominee?
Yes, but you would not accept it, so why bother. Do some reading on what some GOP Senators have said in their statements that a hearing SHOULD be held.
Regardless are you willing to wait until 2040 before a nominee is considered in a hearing and vote by the Senate?
So no you can't?
Yes, I can. But I do not expect you to accept it.
[The President] 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,
Now show me where the Constitution says that Congress has the right to obstruct for a year or until the next election the holding of a hearing to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. I answered your question, now please answer mine.
You have mischaracterized the actions of the Congress. You cannot prove your characterization of "obstruct" is correct and true. In fact what congress has done is in fact given their advice. Their advice is to not allow a nominee at this time.
The phrase "advice and consent" in no way means a candidate must be put forth to a vote. The Senate has the authority to both bring a nominee to a vote or to not bring a nominee to a vote. There is no breaking of the Constitution either way.
So we disagree on the interpretation. I believe you are wrong. You cannot advise and consent if you refuse to consider a nominee.
Now, please show me where in the Constitution it says Congress shall block, obstruct, or delay the hearing and voting on a Supreme Court nominee.
I replies to your question, now please answer mine. Thanks.
Yes or No: did the senate have a requirement to begin hearing the very minute OB slobbered out his choice?
First, I gave you an answer. Just because you do not like it does not mean I did not give one. They did consider the nominee. The constitution does not say they have to bring a nominee to a vote. Can you show me where it says they must bring him to a vote? Refusing to bring it to a vote is in fact considering the nominee.
Advice and consent does not mean have to bring it to a vote or approve.
Exactly. And that's why legally what Mitchell is saying is incorrect. Typically, the advising takes the form of a Congressional hearing and the Consent the form of the Senate vote.
The "Not considering" is outside their Constitutional role as they at least have the responsibility to consider and question a nominee before they can give advice and/or consent to the President about said nominee.
If you haven't questioned a nominee or looked into their background and qualifications, how are the people to trust you advising or consenting on the nominee?
Not considering means you're just not gonna do anything but say no. You haven't investigated anything. You haven't done what you took an oath of office to do.
Every time something like this is done, it's out of order with the Constitution. By not considering, the Senate leadership has basically said we're not going to do what we area Constitutionally required to do.
So once again, we see the spurious nature of that whole "Rule of law" thing the right is so fond of throwing around.
How do you consider a nominee when you say you won't consider the nominee? You can't do your Constitutionally required duty to advise if you don't consider. That doesn't mean that a vote has to be taken. That means that if a President makes a nomination, the Senate, if they are going to do their Constitutional duty, have to at least put forth a bit of due diligence to question/background check, etc. the nominee before giving their advice to the President.
You can't properly advise the President if you're not even considering.
The Constitution says Advice and consent. If you're not considering, how can you advise other than out of pure partisanship?
Not true Rev. You cannot say the Senate has considered a candidate when they have held no hearing. McConnell even said they would not consider any nominee before the next election. That is simply obstruction and dereliction of duty. Kind of funny, in the military a person can be court martialed for dereliction of duty when in politics some praise McConnell for not doing his job. It would have been much smarter to hold hearings and then voted against the nominee. At least the GOP could have said we followed the Constitution. But no, they simply continued their 8 year run of obstruction. The majority of American people are wise enough to see through this ruse. Have you notices how the GOP approval rating has declined?
The approval ratings of both parties are in the dumps. And yes it is true they do not have to have a hearing or a vote. That in and of itself is due consideration. Further, just because the President nominates one does not mean they have to even consider it at all. The portion of the constitution that speak to this only puts restrictions on the Presidents powers but in no way imposes responsibilities on the Senate as to how to act. It just is not there.
That's a lie.
Yes or No: does the constitution give a time frame for the Senate to hold hearings for a nominee? We're they required to begin hearings the same day bo slobbered out the name? The same week? The same month? 126 day?...what?
I respectfully disagree. Also, concerning politics, it is very bad politics to be viewed by voters as do nothing obstructionists.
Ain't we all sure that's your point here, troll?
No one sees this as obstructionism. Well except for extremists who are trying to create that narrative as a political tool to gain power.
They don't have to hold a hearing. But to advise, they must consider. And that demands at least some rudimentary effort to find out who the nominee is and what his record is on issues.
It is unConstitutional for them to not even consider a nominee.
I am asking about a constitutional time frame. Where is it found?