Repeal the 17th and we’d have a Senate which would have no trouble telling Obama to go F himself.
Dictator Obama fails to understand what the word “with” means.
This so-called president was a dumbass when he started and is even more of a dumbass now.
Ellis Island name change. In the original German the family name was D**khead.
The 90 day period is just pulled out of thin air. Some of Bush’s nominations were left hanging much longer than that. In the early decades there were long intervals when Congress was not in session—Congressional terms began on March 4th but the session normally began in December, so in odd-numbered years you could go nine months without Congress being there to do anything about a nomination. It wasn’t until the 1930s that the date of when a session began was changed.
Not if they are in session!!!
This guy's a lawyer? The advice and consent role of the Senate is not a right of the Senate that it can waive. It's part of the Constitutional process by which appointments are made (except for VP vacancies). No part of the federal government can waive a part of a Constitutional process. Under this moron's logic, the Senate could argue that the Liberal Messiah waived His power to nominate due to His taking weeks to nominate.
Utter BS.
The truly sad thing is if he did this and a Republican rose to the presidency, the Republican would revert to the previous Borkable method.
Democrat thugs KNOW they can’t just appoint a supreme court justice. If Obama could it would be his black female lesbian transgendered illegal alien from Somalia.
How to start a war in one easy lesson...
No, he can’t.
This has to be right out of Ted Cruz’s play book.
It’s legal!
Who could object? Right Tedra?
I don ‘t think so.
It’s suspicious that the Washington Post didn’t also refer to the related Clause 3 of the referenced Section. Here’s Clause 2 & 3 of Section 2 of Article II:
Clause 2: 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 Departments.Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of the next Senate session.
What I’m seeing with Clause 3 is that a justice appointed to fill a vacancy during a Senate Recess does not have the job until they decide to retire, the job actually expiring at the end of the next Session.
Also, the Constitution doesn’t define what a session is. But historical records show that a session can be as short as a day. So even if Obama appoints Garland during a Senate recess, the Senate evidently only needs to change its schedule a little to restart the justice nomination and consent process.
"The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty."
Also, regarding the argument that the Senate fails to perform its constitutional duty to give or withhold its consent, historically there are several examples when it took more than a year for a vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled.
Long Supreme Court vacancies used to be more common
So what am I overlooking?
ComDem Insanity.
BUT
The Congress can simply disapprove the appointment. End of story.
Find you balls Congress. Act. Deny the appointment.
All Congress has to do is vote that the Supreme court has 8 memebers. And then it does. No appointment needed.
He’ll try it.
Uh... no. He can’t.
The Senate does not operate with ‘rights’.
It operates with ‘powers’.
Any appointment must be ‘by and with the advice and consent’ of the Senate.
Two compounds: (1) by and with (2) advice and consent
That means the president must appoint
‘by..the advice...of the Senate’
‘by...the consent...of the Senate’
‘with...the advice...of the Senate’
‘with...the consent...of the Senate’
That’s really a sticky wicket for anyone wanting a president to try to appoint a judge on his own.
It would be an INEFFECTIVE appointment, not just an illegal appointment. IOW, it would not be real on its face.
By = by means of
With = united with
“By means of the consent of the Senate” pretty well locks this up against a predatory president. It means specifically the opposite of the argument being used about ‘not exercising their option’.
It means that the president is not the ruling factor. It means the Senate is given the upper hand. IOW, the Senate ‘gives permission’ to appoint. “With the consent’ says that the Senate must demonstrate their permission by being alongside the president, agreeing to the appointment.
accepting the appointment would be dangerous for the health of the appointee