Pretty sound argument.
I sure hope you are not agreeing with that liberal lawyer. If so, than you are out of your cotton picking mind and need to explain yourself
No it isn’t a sound argument.
“In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?
It doesn’t say anything about “seeking” and it also doesn’t say “must seek”. Why are they adding words and meaning to the constitution that aren’t there?
To make their phony point, that’s why.
(the president) “.......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,.....”
The governing word here is “CONSENT”. “With consent” from the Senate. The implied “must” here is the word “with”.
In other words, The president MUST get CONSENT from the Senate, PERIOD! There is no ambiguity here. He has to WAIT for “consent” before he can appoint. The constitution sets no time limit.
The controlling authority here is with the Senate. The president puts a name in nomination, a proposal, nothing more. The Senate makes the actual decision. Then the president does the “formality” (nothing more than that) of making the appointment.
The jerk in the article acts like the Senate’s job here is just some minor something that happens in between the important parts the president does. It’s just the opposite. The Senate makes the actual decision while the president carries out formalities.
All I can say is, good luck with that Obama.