McConnell: ‘Senate Will Withhold’ Consent of Any Obama SCOTUS Nominee

[Revmitchell]

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
says the Senate will “withhold” consent of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
The Republican leader said on the Senate floor the new president should choose the nominee who replaces Justice Antonin Scalia, who died February 13.

“Presidents have the right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ill-withhold-consent-of-obama-scotus-nominee/

 

[Zaac]

And they will lose control of the Senate and the White House and President Clinton, II will appoint the liberal that she wants to the court.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
says the Senate will “withhold” consent of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
The Republican leader said on the Senate floor the new president should choose the nominee who replaces Justice Antonin Scalia, who died February 13.

“Presidents have the right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ill-withhold-consent-of-obama-scotus-nominee/

Nothing new here. McConnell will go down in history as the senator who had a one word vocabulary, "NO!".

I think this will cost the GOP in the upcoming election. It is such an abandonment of their Constitutional responsibility.

 

[just-want-peace]

Based on past actions, I ain't holding my breath!

 

[Revmitchell]

It is such an abandonment of their Constitutional responsibility.

Really? please school us as to what the Constitution says that we can understand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.

 

[carpro]

McConnell will fold. He always does.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Really? please school us as to what the Constitution says that we can understand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.

And here I thought you were a stick to the Constitution man. Guess you are not.

GOP senators should do their duty, either accept or reject the appointment. To simply sit, leaving the court short of justices while so many important issues are before the country is irresponsible.

From: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-advice-and-consent-clause/

The Advice and consent clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the President can exercise his/her power to enter into treaties with other countries only with the advice and consent of the Senate. This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

“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”.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And here I thought you were a stick to the Constitution man. Guess you are not.

GOP senators should do their duty, either accept or reject the appointment. To simply sit, leaving the court short of justices while so many important issues are before the country is irresponsible.

Doing nothing is not governing. The GOP bragged in 2014 how they would show the nation they could govern. They have proven this is totally false.

From: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-advice-and-consent-clause/

The Advice and consent clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the President can exercise his/her power to enter into treaties with other countries only with the advice and consent of the Senate. This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

“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”.

 

[Revmitchell]

And here I thought you were a stick to the Constitution man. Guess you are not.

GOP senators should do their duty, either accept or reject the appointment. To simply sit, leaving the court short of justices while so many important issues are before the country is irresponsible.

From: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-advice-and-consent-clause/

The Advice and consent clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the President can exercise his/her power to enter into treaties with other countries only with the advice and consent of the Senate. This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

“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”.

So, you have not answered my question yet. I will ask again. Where in the constitution does it demand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So, you have not answered my question yet. I will ask again. Where in the constitution does it demand the Senate is required to give advice and or consent within a specific time frame.

Those who are too blind to see will never see.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has the right to abandon their responsibilities? They are to advise and either approve or disapprove. The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing.

 

[Revmitchell]

Those who are too blind to see will never see.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has the right to abandon their responsibilities? They are to advise and either approve or disapprove. The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing.

So you want to argue from silence. Actually what it means is that the Senate has the freedom to handle this as they see fit. The benefit from this is the President needs to work with the Senate to come up with a candidate that everyone can get behind instead of one of the far left radicals who care nothing about our founding or our constitution.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So you want to argue from silence. Actually what it means is that the Senate has the freedom to handle this as they see fit. The benefit from this is the President needs to work with the Senate to come up with a candidate that everyone can get behind instead of one of the far left radicals who care nothing about our founding or our constitution.

1. No president has ever "worked with the Senate" on the next Supreme Court nominee. That is not in the Constitution.

Can you image any GOP candidate becoming president and consulting with the Democrats who should be a Supreme Court nominee? The consulting is done in the hearings, not before the nominee is selected.

2. I argue not from silence as you want to claim, but from the Constitution which you now want to set aside and ignore.

3. If the GOP does not like the nominee they can turn it down. But not to act at all is complete irresponsibility.

 

[Revmitchell]

1. No president has ever "worked with the Senate" on the next Supreme Court nominee. That is not in the Constitution.

Can you image any GOP candidate becoming president and consulting with the Democrats who should be a Supreme Court nominee? The consulting is done in the hearings, not before the nominee is selected.

If the President wants to get a candidate through he should consult with them first. Otherwise what happens is it becomes a big political game. As far as it not being in the constitution that is incorrect. The Senate has to give consent.

2. I argue not from silence as you want to claim, but from the Constitution which you now want to set aside and ignore.

Saying "The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing" is arguing from silence.

3. If the GOP does not like the nominee they can turn it down. But not to act at all is complete irresponsibility.

Nothing in the constitution says they need to even bring the Presidents nominee up for a vote. Refusal to do so is just another way of not giving consent. Not sure why I need to explain that.

 

[Zaac]

1. No president has ever "worked with the Senate" on the next Supreme Court nominee. That is not in the Constitution.

Can you image any GOP candidate becoming president and consulting with the Democrats who should be a Supreme Court nominee? The consulting is done in the hearings, not before the nominee is selected.

2. I argue not from silence as you want to claim, but from the Constitution which you now want to set aside and ignore.

3. If the GOP does not like the nominee they can turn it down. But not to act at all is complete irresponsibility.

Well said. But as you mentioned before, this will probably cost them control of the Senate and then President Clinton, II will appoint the person she wants to the court.

This is the proverbial shoot yourself in the foot play by the GOP especially the more it looks like Donald Trump will be their Presidential nominee.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Rev. can you imagine any Republican president consulting with a Democratic controlled congress about who he should nominate as a Supreme Court justice?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well said. But as you mentioned before, this will probably cost them control of the Senate and then President Clinton, II will appoint the person she wants to the court.

This is the proverbial shoot yourself in the foot play by the GOP especially the more it looks like Donald Trump will be their Presidential nominee.

The GOP seems to have a circular firing squad.

 

[Alcott]

Well said. But as you mentioned before, this will probably cost them control of the Senate and then President Clinton, II will appoint the person she wants to the court.

This is the proverbial shoot yourself in the foot play by the GOP especially the more it looks like Donald Trump will be their Presidential nominee.

Is that how it worked for Biden when he declared in '92 that the Senate would not vote on any Bush (1)'s appointee to the court? or when Obama filibustered any Bush (2) appointee?

 

[Alcott]

Those who are too blind to see will never see.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has the right to abandon their responsibilities? They are to advise and either approve or disapprove. The Constitution does not call for them to sit and do nothing.

Why did Obama violate the constitution, boy? He didn't nominate anyone yesterday!

 

[kyredneck]

McConnell: ‘Senate Will Withhold’ Consent of Any Obama SCOTUS Nominee

That's a stupid strategy and an even more stupid thing to declare. Aren't these dumb Republicans considering who is going to be making the picks if the Dems win in November? They should keep their options open in the event that Obama does come up with an acceptable nominee.

They're going to keep on with this stupid stuff and lose seats in November.

 

[Rob_BW]

That's a stupid strategy and an even more stupid thing to declare. Aren't these dumb Republicans considering who is going to be making the picks if the Dems win in November? They should keep their options open in the event that Obama does come up with an acceptable nominee.

They're going to keep on with this stupid stuff and lose seats in November.

With the Sandoval rumors, I heard some people say the Senate should consider him, and consent if Hilary wins. But if a Republican wins, then deny him and wait for the new president.