(03-16-2016 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate has no Constitutional Responsbility to do anything with regard to a SCOTUS nominee.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2
includes absolutely no mandate for the Senate to Advice and Consent.
It only states that the President appointments must be by and with the Senate's advice and consent.

"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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

(03-16-2016 07:52 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate has no Constitutional Responsbility to do anything with regard to a SCOTUS nominee.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2
includes absolutely no mandate for the Senate to Advice and Consent.
It only states that the President appointments must be by and with the Senate's advice and consent.

"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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

You have to be kidding. They can't really advise without holding hearings and they can't really consent, or fail to consent for that matter without voting. Hearings and votes are the mechanisms used to "advise and consent".

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate has no Constitutional Responsbility to do anything with regard to a SCOTUS nominee.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2
includes absolutely no mandate for the Senate to Advice and Consent.
It only states that the President appointments must be by and with the Senate's advice and consent.

"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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

You have to be kidding. They can't really advise without holding hearings and they can't really consent, or fail to consent for that matter without voting. Hearings and votes are the mechanisms used to "advise and consent".

Of course advice and consent refers to hearings and a vote.
But there is no mandate to do so.
i.e. no "by and with the Senate who MUST advice and consent."

The lack of MUST in the text = no mandate.

They advised the President they weren't going to consent.

(03-16-2016 10:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  They advised the President they weren't going to consent.

I see what you did.

(03-16-2016 08:58 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate has no Constitutional Responsbility to do anything with regard to a SCOTUS nominee.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2
includes absolutely no mandate for the Senate to Advice and Consent.
It only states that the President appointments must be by and with the Senate's advice and consent.

"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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

You have to be kidding. They can't really advise without holding hearings and they can't really consent, or fail to consent for that matter without voting. Hearings and votes are the mechanisms used to "advise and consent".

Of course advice and consent refers to hearings and a vote.
But there is no mandate to do so.
i.e. no "by and with the Senate who MUST advice and consent."

The lack of MUST in the text = no mandate.

You are grasping at straws.

(03-16-2016 11:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:58 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

The Senate has no Constitutional Responsbility to do anything with regard to a SCOTUS nominee.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2
includes absolutely no mandate for the Senate to Advice and Consent.
It only states that the President appointments must be by and with the Senate's advice and consent.

"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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

You have to be kidding. They can't really advise without holding hearings and they can't really consent, or fail to consent for that matter without voting. Hearings and votes are the mechanisms used to "advise and consent".

Of course advice and consent refers to hearings and a vote.
But there is no mandate to do so.
i.e. no "by and with the Senate who MUST advice and consent."

The lack of MUST in the text = no mandate.

You are grasping at straws.

No, it's you who're grasping at straws. You've been given proof of precedent and you refuse to concede the point. Biden, Schumer, Reid, and the current President disagree with your stance.