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.
There is no time limit for either confirming or rejecting a federal judge nominee.
I didn't indicate otherwise but the there is no precedent as you alluded to, Biden, Obama did not refuse to hear a nominee. Some people have indicated there is a precedent for this, there is none.
No, I don't know that, because it doesn't make sense. Of course, they could just consent without considering the nominee. Or they could refuse to consent without considering the nominee.
Impossible.
Look up the meaning of consent.
Quote:
Show me where the Constitution says that they have to hold hearings for the nominee. So alright, say that they hold hearings for whatever nominee and then vote to refuse him or her anyway. What's the difference?
I'll direct you to investigate the senate's own rules for the process.
Next time, you can be assured, if and when the situation is reversed and a Justice passes away, Democrats is fully entitled to and justified in refusing to hold hearings to confirm appointees of Republican President. But ya know, they are going to draw the line in the sand at 18 months from the Election Day . . . . or 36 months from the Election Day . . . because those Republican Presidents are "essentially" a lame duck. Don't you see the stupidity of all this? So, Constitutionalists and strict textualists, where is this rule in the Constitution? Please advise.
You'd be smart to confirm Obama's moderate (which is the only way for him to have another Justice confirmed during his term in office). Otherwise, Hillary or Bernie would appoint someone all the way to the left . . . . like any judge from the 9th Circuit . . . . or another Sotomayor or Kagen. Be careful what you wish for.
You indicated that what the senate is doing is staying true to preferences that Reid, Obama, Biden have already done?
That is true, as well. Nothing wrong with what they did then. Nothing wrong with what the Senate is doing now. Checks and Balances. You should have learned that when you studied American Government in school.
I'm not seeing how. Isn't the Senate's responsibility to carefully evaluate nominees? The Senate has an R majority now, as does the House. That happened because the American electorate sought to balance the effects of Obama's Presidency. Evidently, Obama's performance as President doesn't warrant a Dem House and Senate according to the American electorate. Checks and Balances. That's the way the federal government is supposed to work. Did you somehow miss that lesson in US History/Government?
When you say you aren't going to even evaluate a nominee, that isn't considered carefully evaluating. Saying the other side does this too, therefore it is okay for the GOP is the definition of playing politics. Realizing that the Democrats tried to use a filibuster to stop a nominee and yet that nominee still was selected is also considered playing politics.
It is you who seems to be missing this lesson on US Government/history. I expect through pressure, McConnell will let nominees to be evaluated and one will be selected by this summer.
When you say you aren't going to even evaluate a nominee, that isn't considered carefully evaluating. Saying the other side does this too, therefore it is okay for the GOP is the definition of playing politics. Realizing that the Democrats tried to use a filibuster to stop a nominee and yet that nominee still was selected is also considered playing politics.
It is you who seems to be missing this lesson on US Government/history. I expect through pressure, McConnell will let nominees to be evaluated and one will be selected by this summer.
It will never happen, but it's cute that you think it will.
Sorry. The Senate GOP, while usually spineless, is not letting Obama get a third justice. He has proven he doesn't deserve that right and it's just too important to allow a far left wing extremist like Obama to fill Scalia's vacancy.
The senate has never refused to put a presidents nominee forward with greater than 11 months remaining in a term, never.
ah so we are putting caviats on things.
oh they did this before but never at that magic 11 month period....
so hey we cant do that!!! I mean that's just INSANE!!!
Abe Fortas (LBJ Appointed Supreme Court Justice) resigned in disgrace May 1969
Justice Blackmun filled that seat in June 1970
But just because I like being a broken record....
The CONSTITUION is clear.
THe SENATE and the SENATE ALONE determines what their rules are and therefore what "Advice and Consent" looks like.
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.
