Posted on 02/29/2016 1:56:26 PM PST by Servant of the Cross
Just days after endorsing Donald Trump for President, New Jersey Governor and former presidential candidate Chris Christie is calling on Senate Republicans to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee (who hasn't been named yet) hearings.
Tweet from @ZekeJMiller: Christie says the GOP Senate should hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nominee
As a former prosecutor, Christie knows the Senate has no constitutional obligation to give Obama's nominee hearings, nor does the Senate have any obligation to confirm a nominee.
Further, the Senate Judiciary Committee has already confirmed hearings will not be held and sent the following letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell,
As we write, we are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.
Over the last few days, much has been written about the constitutional power to fill Supreme Court vacancies, a great deal of it inaccurate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant, or withhold, consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. This is not a difficult or novel constitutional question. As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
Orrin Hatch
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Jeff Flake
David Vitter
David Perdue
Thom Tillis
This deserves the rightful reaction of ... WTF?!
Fat and stupid is as fat and stupid does...
Your post is heresy and you shall be cast into the Outer Darkness.
Meanwhile haven’t the Democrats in New Jersey withheld Christie’s nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court for six years now?
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/02/supreme_court_nominations_new_jersey_is_setting_a.html
This smells a bit. Let's see how it plays out....
Watch trumpsters defend christe now...amusing it will be!
Ha!
Endorsing Trump has liberated Christie from the need to act like he’s a conservative any longer. Ah, the liberation provided by faith in a savior!
At the same time, Please..be aware that the Senate is in danger.
Something is weird with Christie. I’m thinking it’s bitterness.
Endorsing Trump has liberated Christie from the need to act like he’s a conservative any longer. Ah, the liberation provided by faith in a savior!
It is no surprise when liberals behave like liberals.
Letting Obama have his pick is a great idea. He hasn’t done enough to screw up our nation.
I’m not sure what game Christie is playing here.
Mr. Trump should disavow Chris Christie’s endorsement.
Fat, stupid, and leftist is as fat, stupid and leftist does.
Too many twinkies dull the brain, Guv!
Trying to please everyone only gets everyone to hate you in the end as a conniving political opportunist.
Let’s see...Looks like this is based on a tweet from who really knows who and where.
What would be the purpose of putting his ‘two cents’ in at this juncture?
Trying to stay relevant? Playing both sides of the coin? A way to give obama another hug?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.