Gun Topic/Debate

Ricky Bobby · #1 04-18-2016, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiAgX5

The Senate "has to review" a supreme court nominee, just no definitive deadline the Senate must act.

Suck a bag of d!cks, Garland.

Yes to suck a bag of dicks to Garland - however I will disagree with your line in bold - there is no deadline that the Senate must act, AND there is no obligation to review any nominee. They do not have to review any nominee at all.

Per verbatim on Article II Section II of the Constitution:
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court

"By and With the Advice and Consent" means just that. In this case the Senate's advice was already given - "Don't bother" -

The Framers intended appointments by the Executive Branch to have the check and balance of being approved by the Senate - the point was that the Senate should work TOGETHER with the President to have a nomination which would be consented to appointment.

For far too many decades it has been a President vs Senate situation, where the President does no seek advice from the Senate at all on nominees, just names whoever they want, and throws the ball in the Senate's court. Not how it was intended to work.

I get such a laugh out of the "do your job" crowd. And I just pull Harry Reid up on Youtube from 2005 which is wonderful as he quotes verbatim "The Constitution does not impose an obligation from the Senate to hold hearings or take up a nomination" - he was right back then, but sings a different tune now.

The History of Now, as one of my favorite radio hosts has coined the phrase that the progressives use in their logic....

TiAgX5 · #2 04-18-2016, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby

Yes to suck a bag of dicks to Garland - however I will disagree with your line in bold - there is no deadline that the Senate must act, AND there is no obligation to review any nominee. They do not have to review any nominee at all.

Per verbatim on Article II Section II of the Constitution:
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court

"By and With the Advice and Consent" means just that. In this case the Senate's advice was already given - "Don't bother" -

The Framers intended appointments by the Executive Branch to have the check and balance of being approved by the Senate - the point was that the Senate should work TOGETHER with the President to have a nomination which would be consented to appointment.

For far too many decades it has been a President vs Senate situation, where the President does no seek advice from the Senate at all on nominees, just names whoever they want, and throws the ball in the Senate's court. Not how it was intended to work.

I get such a laugh out of the "do your job" crowd. And I just pull Harry Reid up on Youtube from 2005 which is wonderful as he quotes verbatim "The Constitution does not impose an obligation from the Senate to hold hearings or take up a nomination" - he was right back then, but sings a different tune now.

The History of Now, as one of my favorite radio hosts has coined the phrase that the progressives use in their logic....

Good point, no "advise and consent" from Senate went into the Garland Obama pic. The Senate needs to just say no to Garland, and instruct Obama to pic again, with Senate input on selection.