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
Just when I think Christie couldn’t get any weirder....
Do we have an actual quote from Christie with context? Or just a tweet with no quote from a Time reporter? Are we all going to comment and freak out before we do?
Christie should have his blood sugar checked. High levels can cause mental confusion. It also correlates with dementia.
Ted Cruz is on the Judiciary committee. That is why they wrote this letter.
Is this real?
I guess I shouldn’t be real surprised, after Christie had his love fest with Obama after hurricane Sandy.
Apparently so !
Well for some of us...
We should tell Trump renounce Christie’s idiocy and betrayal of the Make America Great Again movement or??.?
It’s all that sugar in the doughnuts. Maybe try switching brands Mr. Kreme.
Someone should tell Krispy Kreme that the point of whether and when the Senate should hold hearings on an Obama nominee for the Supreme Court is moot until Obama nominates someone.
btt
This doesn’t smell right...where’s the full tweet? I have twitter and have not seen one word about this...
I’m not the pound police. I don’t care what other people weigh.
No Defense offered by this Trump backer.
Just because they “let” Obama make a pick, they are under no obligation to confirm that pick. Go ahead and just give the Democrats another issue to demagogue with their willing accomplices in the media. If they want to stand on being Constitutionalists, play the letter of it and do what they may within its confines. Stand for it and use it, don’t be like them and refuse to honor it.
“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.”
Christie is a blowhard, but this writer is wrong. The Senate DOSE have an obligation to hear and vote. They don’t have to blindly assent.
Thanks for your opinion Christy. Now sit down and shut up.
I’ll bet The Donald thinks this is GREAT for America...
Chris Christie and Dinald Trump carrying water for the establishment pansies since at least 1980.
But, I thought Krispy’s new patron (the Donald) has said no to senate hearings? No?
We shall see, but it does smell like Chris Christie.
Freaking out is part of the fun.
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.