The Constitution Does Not Require the Senate to Vote on a Nomination

Weekly Standard ^ | February 14, 2016 | Adam J. White

[SMGFan]

Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."

True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?

I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution

[Tanniker Smith]

This is why the Dems sat on so many of Bushs appointments for so long. Not on SCOTUS but on lots of others.

[outofsalt]

Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:
He shall have 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 Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.

[Sasparilla]

..(Shumer) claiming the republicans are blowing up the Constitution if they don’t...

Dont you just love it when Fringe Lunatic Liberals suddenly claim that the Constitution is being blown up?

[Eagles6]

http://america-wake-up.com/2013/11/03/why-has-obama-fired-197-us-senior-military-commanders-in-5-years-nine-generals-in-2013/

[kvanbrunt2]

What would have to happen late in his 2nd term, for him to continue on for another 2 years instead of a new POTUS taking office.......?>>>
chaos, assassinate the republican president elect, buy the electoral college

[skeeter]

They play to win.

So should we.

[Eagles6]

Another thought experiment:

Clinton is the Dem nominee, picks hussein as VP. Wins. Gets indicted. Resigns. soetoro becomes POTUS and pardons her.

[Mr. Lucky]

One wonders how the author thinks the Senate would give its "consent" other than by voting?

What a nitwit.

[Mr. Lucky]

One wonders how the author thinks the Senate would give its "consent" other than by voting?

What a nitwit.

[butterdezillion]

I don’t think buying the electoral college would allow him to stay in office. And if the President-elect was assassinated there is a line of succession that would take place that DOESN’T include the out-going POTUS.

So that leaves chaos. It would have to be a LONG, INTENSE bout of chaos to work. How would Obama know in July of 2008 that there would be a LONG, INTENSE situation of chaos right when a new POTUS should be taking over?

[GOPJ]

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business. Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

[outofsalt]

"One wonders how the author thinks the Senate would give its "consent" other than by voting?"

Well, he must be referring to the, "phone and pen" clause of the constitution. It's one of the enumerated penumbras and emanations, don't ya know?!

[rapture-me]

Does anyone know where Hillary was at the time of his death? Just wondering....

[WENDLE]

Well there are times that I agree until I realize that people are out of work and really pissed. Go Trump!!

[WENDLE]

I need to prepare. You are right. I hadn’t thought of that - NOT

[Secret Agent Man]

Chuckie said in 2007, no bush scotus appointees his last year.

[WENDLE]

Get the USA out of the UN— Get the UN out of the USA!

[EDINVA]

The writer never heard of “advice and consent” in the Constitution? It requires 2/3 majority for treaties; a simple majority for appointments of high level positions and judicial appointments.

[Nailbiter]

POTUS for “the next 8 to 10 years”.

It that 57 state thing from our first constitutional scholar _resident

[butterdezillion]

There ARE 57 states.

If you’re talking about the Islamic caliphate.

That is Obama’s “country”, and his little slip there is known as a “tell”.

Kinda like “my Muslim faith” is a tell.

What was he telling us when he said he would be POTUS for “the next 8-10 years”? And how does it fit in with Valerie Jarrett saying there would be hell to pay once Obama doesn’t have to try to get elected again - including payback time for those who resisted them, and having judges ready (presumably to replace judges that died, even though the SCOTUS justice most likely to die should have been Ginsburg...)?