CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

Nothing I said was false.

• As I said-it is up to the Senate- not the majority leader.
• He shall have Power.....,and he shall nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ....Judges of the supreme Court
• One of the enumerated jobs of the Senate as shown above is to provide advice- and consent/denial of Justices- just as it is the job of the President to nominate and appoint justices.

When the Senate acts as a body, it can take many paths to act.

One such path is that the majority party leadership simply says no, bit me and the President needs to find a new nominee, as if Obama really was trying to get one passed in the Senate anyway.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

 

[jillian]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

I probably wouldn't advise it before the election.

but during the lame duck session.

interesting concept. I don't know that there's a precedent for it, but there's certainly no precedent for the senate refusing to do it's job because they're a bunch of hacks

 

[jillian]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

there has never been a senate that refused to hold hearings.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

there has never been a senate that refused to hold hearings.

They did not have to make such a refusal as the President has always withdrawn his nominee when it became apparent he wouldnt get approval.

Oh, but not his Royal Highness President Obama! And so he has compelled the Senate to make such a refusal as they have every Constitutional right to do so.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Red:
I don't have a problem with the majority party having its way as goes the Senate's decision regarding any matter brought to the floor for the whole body to consider. Simply not allowing the whole body to officially weigh in on matters is what I find unacceptable and a dereliction of the duty granted to the sitting Senators.

Blue:
Now would not be too soon to put an end to the silliness that has always been. I had rather the end came sooner, but it has not.

Pink:
I realize you more or less concur that the Senate should at least debate the nomination and put it to a vote. All the same, that doesn't make the Bork nomination much the same from a procedural standpoint, which is what is at issue re: Judge Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS.

The Bork confirmation process cannot be seen as the start of a "downward spiral" as goes judicial confirmations. The man's nomination was considered and voted upon in committee. His nomination was rejected in committee by a 9-5 vote. Bork, feeling he didn't "get his due" in committee, then advocated for his nomination to nonetheless be considered by the full Senate, saying:

There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
​

On October 23, 1987, he got what he asked for. The Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against.

What parallel do you see between the Bork process that afforded him both a committee vote and a full Senate vote and the current one pertaining to Mr. Garland? I see two:

• The jurist in question has been nominated to the SCOTUS.
• The majority party in the Senate is not the President's party.

I also see a glaring dissimilarity: Bork's nomination was considered by the whole Senate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Red:
I don't have a problem with the majority party having its way as goes the Senate's decision regarding any matter brought to the floor for the whole body to consider. Simply not allowing the whole body to officially weigh in on matters is what I find unacceptable and a dereliction of the duty granted to the sitting Senators.

Blue:
Now would not be too soon to put an end to the silliness that has always been. I had rather the end came sooner, but it has not.

Pink:
I realize you more or less concur that the Senate should at least debate the nomination and put it to a vote. All the same, that doesn't make the Bork nomination much the same from a procedural standpoint, which is what is at issue re: Judge Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS.

The Bork confirmation process cannot be seen as the start of a "downward spiral" as goes judicial confirmations. The man's nomination was considered and voted upon in committee. His nomination was rejected in committee by a 9-5 vote. Bork, feeling he didn't "get his due" in committee, then advocated for his nomination to nonetheless be considered by the full Senate, saying:

There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
​

On October 23, 1987, he got what he asked for. The Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against.

What parallel do you see between the Bork process that afforded him both a committee vote and a full Senate vote and the current one pertaining to Mr. Garland? I see two:

• The jurist in question has been nominated to the SCOTUS.
• The majority party in the Senate is not the President's party.

I also see a glaring dissimilarity: Bork's nomination was considered by the whole Senate.

Note in this list of all nominations to the SCOTUS how many were WITHDRAWN?

List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was when the POTUS realized his nominee would not pass, so they then withdrew him.

There is no requirement for a vote by the senate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How Biden killed John Roberts’s nomination in 1992

On Jan. 27, 1992, President Bush nominated Roberts to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts was immensely qualified for the job. He had served since 1989 as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court, making him one of the country’s most experienced Supreme Court litigators.

But his nomination to the federal bench was dead on arrival at Biden’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden refused to even hold a hearing on Roberts’s nomination, much less a vote in committee or on the Senate floor. Roberts’s nomination died in committee and was withdrawn on Oct. 8, 1992. It was only about a decade later that he was re-nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush — and we all know the rest of the story.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

The point of his remark is not whether a vote occurs, but rather that the Senate majority leader and Committee leaders have, in spite of there being nothing in the constitution about majority leaders or committees, determined not to bring matters to the Senate floor for the consideration of all Senators and in so doing have prevented the Senate from doing part of its job.

I think he did imply that, but I cant just assume it for various reasons.

The problem with that is that Presidential nominees have been turned down this way for ever. Normally the POTUS would not send the nomination anyway if the Senate leadership said straight forwardly No!

But Obama is politicizing this too, and so he pushed the nominee forward anyway, and his partisan supporters are pushing this idea that the Senate has to give it an up or down vote and that has never been the case. Many nominations have 'died' in committee or when it became clear that the Senates leadership would not support the nomination, and then the POTUS would withdraw it. List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this President wont withdraw his nominees because he is too arrogant to concede to the Constitutional power of the Senate.

why would he withdraw his nominee? there is nothing unqualified about him. and there is certainly nothing "arrogant" about having nominated him. you need to join

and who he nominates doesn't matter to you and your ilk.

you're welcome

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

Nothing I said was false.

• As I said-it is up to the Senate- not the majority leader.
• He shall have Power.....,and he shall nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ....Judges of the supreme Court
• One of the enumerated jobs of the Senate as shown above is to provide advice- and consent/denial of Justices- just as it is the job of the President to nominate and appoint justices.

When the Senate acts as a body, it can take many paths to act.

One such path is that the majority party leadership simply says no, bit me and the President needs to find a new nominee, as if Obama really was trying to get one passed in the Senate anyway.

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Majority leader.

Now if you want to change the Constitution so that it reads 'with the advise and consent of the Senate Majority leader'- well then the rest of the Senate would no longer have to be involved.

 

[jillian]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Red:
I don't have a problem with the majority party having its way as goes the Senate's decision regarding any matter brought to the floor for the whole body to consider. Simply not allowing the whole body to officially weigh in on matters is what I find unacceptable and a dereliction of the duty granted to the sitting Senators.

Blue:
Now would not be too soon to put an end to the silliness that has always been. I had rather the end came sooner, but it has not.

Pink:
I realize you more or less concur that the Senate should at least debate the nomination and put it to a vote. All the same, that doesn't make the Bork nomination much the same from a procedural standpoint, which is what is at issue re: Judge Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS.

The Bork confirmation process cannot be seen as the start of a "downward spiral" as goes judicial confirmations. The man's nomination was considered and voted upon in committee. His nomination was rejected in committee by a 9-5 vote. Bork, feeling he didn't "get his due" in committee, then advocated for his nomination to nonetheless be considered by the full Senate, saying:

There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
​

On October 23, 1987, he got what he asked for. The Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against.

What parallel do you see between the Bork process that afforded him both a committee vote and a full Senate vote and the current one pertaining to Mr. Garland? I see two:

• The jurist in question has been nominated to the SCOTUS.
• The majority party in the Senate is not the President's party.

I also see a glaring dissimilarity: Bork's nomination was considered by the whole Senate.

Note in this list of all nominations to the SCOTUS how many were WITHDRAWN?

List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was when the POTUS realized his nominee would not pass, so they then withdrew him.

There is no requirement for a vote by the senate.

*yawn*

you know that he was speaking hypothetically about an extremist loon being nominated. and it never happened anyway.

but thanks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans are merely following Schumer, Biden and Reid. Are you saying Democrats abdicated their obligations under the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Like I said- the spiral downward will continue.

If a Democrat is elected President in 2016, and the GOP maintains control of the Senate, then they can just refuse to do their job for the next 8 years too.

 

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Red:
I don't have a problem with the majority party having its way as goes the Senate's decision regarding any matter brought to the floor for the whole body to consider. Simply not allowing the whole body to officially weigh in on matters is what I find unacceptable and a dereliction of the duty granted to the sitting Senators.

Blue:
Now would not be too soon to put an end to the silliness that has always been. I had rather the end came sooner, but it has not.

Pink:
I realize you more or less concur that the Senate should at least debate the nomination and put it to a vote. All the same, that doesn't make the Bork nomination much the same from a procedural standpoint, which is what is at issue re: Judge Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS.

The Bork confirmation process cannot be seen as the start of a "downward spiral" as goes judicial confirmations. The man's nomination was considered and voted upon in committee. His nomination was rejected in committee by a 9-5 vote. Bork, feeling he didn't "get his due" in committee, then advocated for his nomination to nonetheless be considered by the full Senate, saying:

There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
​

On October 23, 1987, he got what he asked for. The Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against.

What parallel do you see between the Bork process that afforded him both a committee vote and a full Senate vote and the current one pertaining to Mr. Garland? I see two:

• The jurist in question has been nominated to the SCOTUS.
• The majority party in the Senate is not the President's party.

I also see a glaring dissimilarity: Bork's nomination was considered by the whole Senate.

At the time I supported the rejection of Bork.

But in retrospective I consider his rejection as the beginning of the descent to the current Senate's refusal to perform its Constitutional duty because of the politicizing of the Justice nominations.

I agree that with Bork, the Senate at least did its job- but his was the first step to where we are now.

 

[Syriusly]

Republicans are merely following Schumer, Biden and Reid. Are you saying Democrats abdicated their obligations under the Constitution?

Are you saying that Republicans should act like Democrats?

 

[Syriusly]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

And the majority party will have its way in the Senate just like it has always been.

Red:
I don't have a problem with the majority party having its way as goes the Senate's decision regarding any matter brought to the floor for the whole body to consider. Simply not allowing the whole body to officially weigh in on matters is what I find unacceptable and a dereliction of the duty granted to the sitting Senators.

Blue:
Now would not be too soon to put an end to the silliness that has always been. I had rather the end came sooner, but it has not.

Pink:
I realize you more or less concur that the Senate should at least debate the nomination and put it to a vote. All the same, that doesn't make the Bork nomination much the same from a procedural standpoint, which is what is at issue re: Judge Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS.

The Bork confirmation process cannot be seen as the start of a "downward spiral" as goes judicial confirmations. The man's nomination was considered and voted upon in committee. His nomination was rejected in committee by a 9-5 vote. Bork, feeling he didn't "get his due" in committee, then advocated for his nomination to nonetheless be considered by the full Senate, saying:

There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
​

On October 23, 1987, he got what he asked for. The Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against.

What parallel do you see between the Bork process that afforded him both a committee vote and a full Senate vote and the current one pertaining to Mr. Garland? I see two:

• The jurist in question has been nominated to the SCOTUS.
• The majority party in the Senate is not the President's party.

I also see a glaring dissimilarity: Bork's nomination was considered by the whole Senate.

Note in this list of all nominations to the SCOTUS how many were WITHDRAWN?

List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was when the POTUS realized his nominee would not pass, so they then withdrew him.

There is no requirement for a vote by the senate.

Of course there is no requirement for the senate to vote.

But they haven't provided advise and consent until they do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All Obama has to do is nominate Scalia's son to SCOTUS. I'm sure he'll get confirmed