Remind us howthe Senate MUST vote on Garland again?

[RetiredGySgt]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

 

[JimH52]

I'll wait for Hillary to nominate Obama, thank you.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some seem to want the Congress to do nothing, and Congress seems to be listening to them.
Meanwhile, Congress continues to pay itself. Taking money for not doing one's job would be classified as...what, exactly?

 

[JimH52]

I'll wait for Hillary to nominate Obama, thank you.

That might drive a few to suicide....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Provide the relevant section of the Constitution that REQUIRES the Senate to vote on this man. The requirement is that before a Supreme Court Nominee can assume office the Senate must approve, there is NO requirement that the Senate chooses to not approve that requires a vote.

 

[sonic]

It's a moot point. Once Hillary has won the election, Garland will be approved by the end of the year.

 

[bripat9643]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Wrong. It's totally up to the Senate. The president is required to obtain their consent for his nominees. They are free to withhold it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

No, you are correct, the Senate is filled to the brim with members of the power elite, those men and women whose first priority is their own job security and the phrase Country First is to be used by them only in the month or two before their next election.

There is a downside to this strategy, and McConnell will need to prepare for the inevitable.

See Article II, Sec. 2. Mr. McConnell will need to stay on top of his game to prevent a recess appointment. Given the very low approval rating of Congress, it is also possible that McConnell will not be the leader come Jan. 3, 2007.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Provide the relevant section of the Constitution that REQUIRES the Senate to vote on this man. The requirement is that before a Supreme Court Nominee can assume office the Senate must approve, there is NO requirement that the Senate chooses to not approve that requires a vote.

The Senate must give advice and consent (or lack of it) on nominations. You know it, I know it, so your demand is silly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Wrong. It's totally up to the Senate. The president is required to obtain their consent for his nominees. They are free to withhold it.

An order of argument can be made that the Senate should vote.

However, since the crazy wing of the GOP has put us in a position to watch a massive defeat of Trump and the down ballot, get ready for the President to withdraw Garland's nomination. Next February, President Clinton will nominate Obama to the seat. The Senate majority will, at the beginning of the term, change the rules on cloture, which will require a simple majority for consent.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I'll wait for Hillary to nominate Obama, thank you.

That might drive a few to suicide....

If Hillary's the answer... must have been a pretty stupid question

 

[bripat9643]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Wrong. It's totally up to the Senate. The president is required to obtain their consent for his nominees. They are free to withhold it.

An order of argument can be made that the Senate should vote.

The issue is whether the Senate is required to vote, not whether it SHOULD vote, dumbass.

However, since the crazy wing of the GOP has put us in a position to watch a massive defeat of Trump and the down ballot, get ready for the President to withdraw Garland's nomination. Next February, President Clinton will nominate Obama to the seat. The Senate majority will, at the beginning of the term, change the rules on cloture, which will require a simple majority for consent.

Whistling past the graveyard. Trump is going to beat crooked Hillary like a baby seal.

 

[bripat9643]

The Senate is required to consider and advise on nominations.

There should be a vote that the Senate has considered the nomination and rejected it without hearings.

Provide the relevant section of the Constitution that REQUIRES the Senate to vote on this man. The requirement is that before a Supreme Court Nominee can assume office the Senate must approve, there is NO requirement that the Senate chooses to not approve that requires a vote.

The Senate must give advice and consent (or lack of it) on nominations. You know it, I know it, so your demand is silly.

That isn't what the Constitution says, dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is clear that Senate's duty is to advise and consent or not, not waffle.

 

[there4eyeM]

The two-party dictatorship's gradual coup d'état supersedes all else.

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course The Apple Watch had not been invented at the time those smart guys were working out who COULD do what but they knew it was coming....so they didn't put any schedule into when any presidential edict of any form had to be addressed. Not even addressed as "Return to Sender".

The sort of mentality demanding timetables is contained in an organ cleverly concealed 'neath the Velcro (easy open) backflap on red Doctor Dentons!

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is clear that Senate's duty is to advise and consent or not, not waffle.

Where does the Constitution use the word "duty" in relation to the "advise and consent" function?

 

[Dot Com]

Does the Senate Have to Act on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution forcing the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee at all. Or perhaps one of you rejects that claims there is can point it out?

no surprise a rw'er such as yourself want 8 people doing the work of nine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is clear that Senate's duty is to advise and consent or not, not waffle.

Where does the Constitution use the word "duty" in relation to the "advise and consent" function?

Those are your silly words, not mine. The Senate has a "duty" to fulfill its Constitutional role. You are not the word meme here, only the silly man.