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
Where does the Constitution say that it has such an obligation? All I see is that it has the power to advise and to consent (or, by implication, not to consent.) Avoiding a vote is one means to withhold consent.
Giving them hearings is NOT the same thing as approving them. Give ‘em a fair trial, THEN hang ‘em!
Some times.
If true it is a sad thing, but not all that unexpected its not as if Gov Christi has shown a great deal of tactical or strategic thinking of late.
It would be in WWII terms like LETTING the battle of the bulge happen so you MIGHT be able to create the Falaise Pocket and cut of the Germans AFTER a long and bloody fight.
I couldn't have said it better; probably not as well.
Whenever I see Christie I’m reminded of the fat guy in the Monty Python sketch who eats so much he blows up.
On the purge list.
He endorsed Trump, and we know, using the transitive property of cruzbeckology that means Trump is bat-s**t crazy, too.
No hearing.
Chris Christie is yuuuuuuge!
Well we all watched him kiss Obama’s ass a couple days before the election last time and tell him what a great President he was. The media tried everything to keep him in the race (Kasich too). DEMs will pick up that ball and run with it.
Hey Chris!
That’s your Second big mistake in less than a week!
I’ll hold judgement until I see something other than a second hand tweet
So even the weasel Lindsay Grayed Ham is on board with shutting down Valerie’s pick?
Wonders never cease.
Kabuki.
Mitch McConnell: “Im a true conservative. I will stand up to Trump.”
Take into consideration who authored this piece. Wasn’t Katie one of the 22 in the NRO Special Whine Edition?
This is meant to bash Trump more than Christie
Agreed. First had source is far better.
I did preface my statement with “If”
Great job, Vice President Christie. Holding the line against godless Bolshevism. Constitutional judicial tyranny. It’s gonna be YUUUUUGE.....
Either you believe in the Constitution or you don’t:
“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, 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 Departments.”
Doesn’t say anything about “when it’s convenient”. So Christie is right: let Obama do his job and let the Senate do theirs. If they don’t like the nominee, vote no.
Simple.
“The Senate DOSE have an obligation to hear and vote. They don’t have to blindly assent.”
No, they don’t (if you mean `does’). All they have to do is say, `Yeah, we know you nominated someone else (like Kagan, Sotomeyer)’ and then they simply refuse to consider his appointment. Like a pocket veto. Checks and balances.
What? C & B’s only work for Democrats?
“advice and consent”
This term is then used again, to describe the Senate’s role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president’s duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:
[The President] 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 Departments.
Yeah... but if it's on the interwebs, it has to be true.
: )
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.