Remind us howthe Senate MUST vote on Garland again?

[JakeStarkey]

There is no need for the president to submit nominations because there is no set number of justices that must sit on the court. A president can just easily as sit back, if the political partisanship is in his favors, wait for a death, and leave the court 4 to 3 in his favor.

If Hillary wins, Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination. Hillary will later submit Obama's name as a nomination, the Democratic Senate will change its rules of operations at the beginning of the term (there is no constitutional hindrance in doing so), and make Obama a Supreme Court justice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Not according to Biden, Reid, Obama or Schumer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no need for the president to submit nominations because there is no set number of justices that must sit on the court. A president can just easily as sit back, if the political partisanship is in his favors, wait for a death, and leave the court 4 to 3 in his favor.

If Hillary wins, Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination. Hillary will later submit Obama's name as a nomination, the Democratic Senate will change its rules of operations at the beginning of the term (there is no constitutional hindrance in doing so), and make Obama a Supreme Court justice.

I am Jake's political wet dream.

Jake, did you forget your fictional, Pinocchio-like "I'm a real Republican" narrative?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no need for the president to submit nominations because there is no set number of justices that must sit on the court. A president can just easily as sit back, if the political partisanship is in his favors, wait for a death, and leave the court 4 to 3 in his favor.

If Hillary wins, Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination. Hillary will later submit Obama's name as a nomination, the Democratic Senate will change its rules of operations at the beginning of the term (there is no constitutional hindrance in doing so), and make Obama a Supreme Court justice.

I am Jake's political wet dream. Jake, did you forget your fictional, Pinocchio-like "I'm a real Republican" narrative?

If that makes sense to you, go for it. You are not a Republican, merely a far right TPM hater. Your hatred level is going to go sky high when HRC defeated Donnie. You are older than me, so make sure you watch your blood pressure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no need for the president to submit nominations because there is no set number of justices that must sit on the court. A president can just easily as sit back, if the political partisanship is in his favors, wait for a death, and leave the court 4 to 3 in his favor.

If Hillary wins, Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination. Hillary will later submit Obama's name as a nomination, the Democratic Senate will change its rules of operations at the beginning of the term (there is no constitutional hindrance in doing so), and make Obama a Supreme Court justice.

I am Jake's political wet dream. Jake, did you forget your fictional, Pinocchio-like "I'm a real Republican" narrative?

If that makes sense to you, go for it. You are not a Republican, merely a far right TPM hater. Your hatred level is going to go sky high when HRC defeated Donnie. You are older than me, so make sure you watch your blood pressure.

When Donald makes Hillary, if she does somehow miraculously get the nomination, walk off the debate stage in tears you can come on here and post what a mean reactionary he is to be mean to your beloved Hillary

 

[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.

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

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

 

[bendog]

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?

The founders assumed that senators wanted a functional supreme court, rather than one that hands down 4-4 decisions or literally punts on an issue it had said it would decide, as they did today in Obamacare, contraception and the Catholics and fundamentalists.

 

[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.

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC will have no difficulty in debating Donnie.

 

[bendog]

HRC will have no difficulty in debating Donnie.

Ah, well with Donald have any actual positions? Or just suggestions he's offering up for debate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, Donnie will point his finger at Hillary, call her a slut, and then pull on his tin foil hat.

 

[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.

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

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

Read it again retard. It command no such thing, it simply states the Senate was advice and consent. meaning to appoint one must be approved to not appoint one need only refuse to agree. No vote needed. I repeat provide us the section and article that commands the Senate to vote in the negative.

 

[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.

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

Read it again retard. It command no such thing, it simply states the Senate was advice and consent. meaning to appoint one must be approved to not appoint one need only refuse to agree. No vote needed. I repeat provide us the section and article that commands the Senate to vote in the negative.

It requires action, my friend.

 

[Dot Com]

There is no need for the president to submit nominations because there is no set number of justices that must sit on the court. A president can just easily as sit back, if the political partisanship is in his favors, wait for a death, and leave the court 4 to 3 in his favor.

If Hillary wins, Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination. Hillary will later submit Obama's name as a nomination, the Democratic Senate will change its rules of operations at the beginning of the term (there is no constitutional hindrance in doing so), and make Obama a Supreme Court justice.

butt hurt rw'ers, like OP, deserve that.

 

[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?

The founders assumed that senators wanted a functional supreme court, rather than one that hands down 4-4 decisions or literally punts on an issue it had said it would decide, as they did today in Obamacare, contraception and the Catholics and fundamentalists.

Don't use logic w/ rw OP, His brain is filled w/ too much partisan hate to comprehend.

 

[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.

Not according to Biden, Reid, Obama or Schumer

They are as wrong as McConnel and his ilk.

 

[bendog]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

 

[bendog]

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.

Not according to Biden, Reid, Obama or Schumer

They are as wrong as McConnel and his ilk.

Ah, but they did not say no way no how. I don't think Obama was even around. Obama did offer up a pro-gun republican sitting governor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Must is not in the Constitution. They give their consent by a vote they do NOT have to give their refusal with a vote. Again retard provide the section that requires a vote from the Constitution.

Of course they do. The document is imperative that the Senate must advise and consent.

Read it again retard. It command no such thing, it simply states the Senate was advice and consent. meaning to appoint one must be approved to not appoint one need only refuse to agree. No vote needed. I repeat provide us the section and article that commands the Senate to vote in the negative.

It requires action, my friend.

Be specific quote and link to the section that actually says action is required. You keep claiming it says that provide us the quote. The Constitution is available in multiply forms on line, should not be hard at all for you to prove your point.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"advise" means take an affirmative action one way or another. But the gop has changed the rules of the game. They too will reap the bitter harvest sooner or later.

So during Bush's Presidency when the Democrats REFUSED action on over 100 Judges by holding no hearings and no votes they were required to vote on the matter? Or was that different?