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

[Nailbiter]

almost makes you want to play poker with him LOL - all those tells probably is lousy poker player

[Sun]

“Two words: Miguel Estrada.”

BINGO!

Schumer would not even allow Miguel Estrada’s nomination to go to the floor for an up, or down, vote. Shameful.

Miguel Estrada put a hold on his life for around a year, maybe more, but finally had to go on with his life. Schumer did not want the Republicans picking a Hispanic who would probably become a SCOTUS justice.

[Sun]

The Republicans need to “bork” Obama’s anti-constitutional judicial nominees.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

is there a way the forefathers left us to shoot down ruling by the SCOTUS????!!!!

You mean like the Dred Scott case? Obviously not. At least, not a civil one . . .

The only ways are impeachment, and constitutional amendment. Neither of which you are likely to be able to do when you need it.

[dp0622]

First, NEVER use the word obviously when talking to me about the constitution or court decisions, as i’m embarrassingly ignorant on a lot the facts.

So there is no realistically feasible way to overturn a SC decision or get rid of a judge?

didn’t the forefathers see what a politically idealistically divided court could to to a country?

[Kenton]

Looks like it’s time for Obama to give his speech where he vows that he will not wait for the Republicans to pass this vital appointment and “fix” it with his pen and his phone.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

First, NEVER use the word obviously when talking to me about the constitution or court decisions, as i’m embarrassingly ignorant on a lot the facts.

Humility is refreshing; we should all follow your example more.

I would add, however, that the Constitution of the United States is a fairly compact document which rewards a rereading every now and then. I do not, however, claim to have it memorized in its entirety as Cruz is said to have done.

So there is no realistically feasible way to overturn a SC decision or get rid of a judge?

First, understand that the founding fathers feared what they called “faction” and you and I call political parties.

The Twelfth Amendment was needed in part because the original constitutional way of electing the vice president systematically produced a VP who was a rival rather than, as now, the designated political heir of the president.

It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict an indictment (“impeachment”) of a judge (or president). It is extremely difficult for a political party to win 60%, still more 67%, of the Senate. I question whether anything short of a civil war creates that much polarization. Watergate came close, but by now the influence of the journalists who promoted Watergate as the worst scandal in the history of scandals is IMHO not quite as influential anymore.

But of course the extra-constitutionalism of the present POTUS may plant a bomb big enough to cause such a polarization.

didn’t the forefathers see what a politically idealistically divided court could to to a country?

They could not foresee everything, let alone provide adequately against everything. Americans have to maintain the system, and the sad fact is that the nation has raised up an army of Sophists who care more about themselves than about freedom for their own great grandchildren. The real genius motivating the framers was “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” That long-term focus explains why the Constitution is as good as it is. IMHO we should make it easier to amend the Constitution with less of a supermajority, provided that such amendments do not take effect for 25 years after enactment. And, of course, provided they are not repealed before then.

[kvanbrunt2]

LONG, INTENSE situation of chaos right when a new POTUS should be taking over?>>> just a book i was working on that i can’t finish cuz real people are now involved. and it’s imagination. but the electoral college votes for the president of the united states. no one else.