Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will answer again. to give consent so that a justice can be seated, they hold a vote.
Yes, that is what the "consent" part in the Constitution means.
Quote:
however the Senate (this next part is important so read slowly) is under no obligation to seat a nominee therefore they are under no obligation to hold a vote.
Ok, so let's remove the "consent" part then.
So, after that Constitutional amendment, their only job is to "advice", and they have done that by saying the President should not nominate a justice.
Unfortunately, that calls for another amendment to the Constitution, because the approach violates the mandate for the President who "shall nominate" justices. Let's get rid of that too.
And people wonder why Congress 'enjoys' the approval of only 12% of American voters
There's quite a difference between obstructing one candidate for a position and obstructing all candidates for a position without even knowing their names.
If Obama nominates a candidate that is avidly anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, conservative, I guarantee you that Mitch McConnell will let it be voted on and the Senate will confirm it for sure.
Of course we're not going to see that because Obama would never nominate any non-liberal judge -- not in a million years.
So, what "advice" is the Senate supposed to give the President?
Note: I did not ask what it doesn't read, I asked what your thought it meant!
The Senate should advise the President of their determination of whether the President's nominee is qualified or not. And if they determine the nominee is qualified, they consent to the appointment.
1. No I don't. The party you support has been on whatever convienent side of the arguemnet. suck it up. debate is rough and tumble. if you are going to be factually wrong, then deal with the consequinces.
Quite wrong. It's just the beginning of the discussion because the American people get to vote every 2 years on the balance of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
You must have forgotten your Constitution.
No... no I didn't.
in fact I agree. every 2 years the people make some decision. quite often, they decide to check a sitting president. sometimes they choose to invest power in a sitting president by giving him majorities in the house and senate.
This is the constitution at work.
my advocacy here is what exists. and what the Constitution demands.
if BHO was a republican and the senate was democrat and this drama was playing out this way, my position would be the same.
Now, I would likely argue that my guy should get in, but it would not be an argument based on constitutional requirement or what the senate ought to do. It would be advocacy for my viewpoint.
What I am refuting is the baseless notion that the Senate must hold a vote. What I am arguing is that the Senate and the Senate alone (read majority) gets to decide how that looks.
Yes, that is what the "consent" part in the Constitution means.
Ok, so let's remove the "consent" part then.
So, after that Constitutional amendment, their only job is to "advice", and they have done that by saying the President should not nominate a justice.
Unfortunately, that calls for another amendment to the Constitution, because the approach violates the mandate for the President who "shall nominate" justices. Let's get rid of that too.
And people wonder why Congress 'enjoys' the approval of only 12% of American voters
Sorry Finn_Jarber, the constitution doesn't need any amending to make this point.
The Senate itself actually (constitutionally)gets to decide what their advice and consent looks like.
Here is a fun fact for you.
over the full course of US History,
3528 men and women have been Nominated and Confirmed in Judicial positions that required Senatorial A&C.
42 declined nomination
99 Withdrew (the majority of these were because of substantial opposition in the senate)
458 had NO ACTION TAKEN
137 were either rejected or NO ACTION TAKEN (record as far as I can desern to date is unclear)
18 were rejected by the senate
1 died before a vote.
As you can see "no action taken" is vastly more likely than any action other than approval.
And people wonder why Congress 'enjoys' the approval of only 12% of American voters
Yeah easy enough to throw that around, but it really needs to be qualified.
1.) Congress has been vastly less approved of by the American people than the other two branches of government for ages. That's nothing new.
2.) The American people tend to like the Senators and Congressmen from their own state just fine. It's the ones from everywhere else they don't like. Seems like that's just human nature, isn't it?
there's quite a difference between obstructing one candidate for a position and obstructing all candidates for a position without even knowing their names.
ok!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
