Senator Tillis: Senate “fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard”

Here’s an interesting point: the Constitution has no requirement that the Senate hold hearings and a vote on anyone nominated by the President. Article II, Section 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,….

If the Senate withholds that Advice and Consent, it sure seems Constitutional

(Daily Caller) “Justice Scalia was widely admired and respected for defending the original intent of the Constitution and its prescribed separation of powers, and he served as a critical check on President Obama’s executive overreaches,” Senator Thom Tillis said. “While the Constitution allows the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice, our founding fathers also made sure to give the Senate advise and consent authority, to help protect the integrity of our system of checks and balances.”

“The president and Democratic leaders aren’t exactly thrilled with giving the American people a voice,” Tillis continued. “And contrary to their claims, the Senate is doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard.”

It’s an excellent point. There is no requirement to hold hearings or a vote. Considering that Democrats blocked many Bush appointees for lower courts for years, and, furthermore, refused to pass an actual budget in both the Democratic Party run House and Senate during the years 2009 through 2010, and the Democratic Party run Senate refused to consider a budget once the GOP took over the House in 2011, they have no leg to stand on.

“Will they join us in doing our jobs on behalf of the American people? Or will they instead seek to further divide our nation by turning the Supreme Court process into a blatantly partisan back and forth?” he said. “Are they going to resort to blocking and sabotaging important legislation and good-faith efforts to help the American people…all in the name of seeking to score cheap political points in an election year?”

Of course they will seek to further divide. It’s what they do. It’s what Obama has been doing since even before the 2008 general election. Everything with them is about power, and they like the notion of picking fights for power. Heck, even liberal Democrats are not happy about the pick

Liberal House Democrats are holding their fire on President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.

Many liberals on and off Capitol Hill had pushed the president to pick a minority nominee –– specifically a black woman, which would be an historic first –– and some liberal advocacy groups quickly condemned Obama’s choice of an older white man with a centrist track record.

But a number of House liberals, while privately grumbling about the decision, have been exceedingly careful not to criticize the president publicly. Instead, they’re praising Garland’s legal bona fides and training their attacks on the Senate Republicans blocking the nomination.

It’s a sign that Democrats appreciate the tactical acumen behind the Garland pick, even if they are not especially enamored of the judge himself.

They wanted a hardcore Progressive who would legislate from the bench, using their feelings, foreign law, and Social Justice in their rulings. In other words, they want someone who cares little for the American Constitution in their attempt to remake America. Hilariously, they claim that Republicans are violating the Constitution for refusing to hold hearings and take a vote. To repeat, a SCOTUS pick requires Advice and Consent to be appointed. The Constitution does not specify how, and, if Senators say their advice is “there should be no pick till the next president” and they refuse to provide consent, that’s Constitutional.

I still think that it would be better to slow walk the pick and set it up for a vote just after the election, because, if Hillary wins, and she will more than likely beat Donald Trump in the Electoral College, Garland Merrick would be better than anyone Hillary picks. How to convey this to the Republican voters, and especially the Conservative base, to make sure they are pumped up and get out to vote?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Senator Tillis: Senate “fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Everything with them is about power, and they like the notion of picking fights for power. Heck, even liberal Democrats are not happy about the pick

    He nominated a widely respected moderate !! How dare he do that? He was just picking a fight! The Republican Senate could avoid a fight by doing their job, examining the nominee and voting. And Sen Thom: the people DID speak in 2012 by overwhelmingly re-electing President Obama. In fact, it’s extremist Republicans spoiling for a fight. Sen Thom: NB – 12% of Americans agree with you.

    the Senate is doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard.”

    — Sen Thom-R

    In their “minds” deferring one year is appropriate. How about 4? 8? Will the Republicans also defer their salaries until they decide the time is right to do their jobs?

    The Republican refusal to govern arises from their idea deficit. So, their political ploy (this time) is to not confirm (or even examine) a SCOTUS nominee until there is a Republican President and Senate. Brilliant!

  2. John says:

    Obama may well remove Garland’s name at any time especially if it becomes increasingly clear that not only will Clinton win, but that the Senate will go Dem also.
    Clinton might then nominate Elizabeth Warren for the SCOTUS
    The GOP has now placed themselves between a rock and a hard place
    Playing hardball IS fun, but of course if you pitch you gotta catch too

  3. Jeffery says:

    Forgot to add:

    Thom Tillis the constitutional scholar? LOL. Probably got a constitutional scholar degree from Trump University.

    The nation sent a group of teabagging dumbasses to Congress the past decade.

  4. Zachriel says:

    “While the Constitution allows the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice

    The U.S. Constitution requires the President to nominate judges.

    “And contrary to their claims, the Senate is doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard.”

    After all, Obama was never a real president, and even if he was, black presidents only count for 3/5 of a term.

  5. jl says:

    And yet none of the commenters here have refuted what was said in the article. Professor J states “and the people did speak in 2012 by re-electing president Obama..” Which of course doesn’t change the fact that there’s no requirement to vote. What professor J conveniently forgets is that the people also overwhelmingly spoke in electing a Republican- held Senate.

  6. jl says:

    “Democrats blocked many of Bush’s appointees for lower courts…” Yes, over 50 with no hearings, no votes. “Thom Tillis the constitutional scholar…LOL” Whoever called him that, J?

  7. Jeffery says:

    All the commenters refuted what the article said.

  8. Jeffery says:

    So Senate Majority Douchebag McConnell changed his position this morning. In an interview with FOX News he admitted that in HIS Senate, the NRA and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have veto power over SCOTUS picks. Yesterday, he couldn’t do his job because Obama was still President; today it’s because the NRA said NO!

    Hey Kentucky, when will you vote this embarrassing douche out of our Senate? Thank you.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    In your 51 second clip, please give the time stamp of when McConnell uses the word “veto.”

    Thanks.

  10. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Hey Kentucky, when will you vote this embarrassing douche out of our Senate? Thank you.

    In 2014, the Democrats nominated Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, the scion (scioness?) of an old Bluegrass political family) and already once the winner of a statewide election, to oppose Senator McConnell. The Democrats had high hopes for Mrs Grimes, because she was young and attractive, and Senator McConnell had just undergone a serious primary challenge from Matt Bevin.

    Senator McConnell won his second-largest victory to date, Mrs Grimes performing only slightly better than the token candidate the Democrats had put up in 2002. Mr McConnell won some eastern Kentucky coal counties he had never carried previously.

    Senator McConnell will be 78 when his seat comes up for re-election; many Kentuckians do not expect him to run again.

    In the meantime, Mr Bevin, a TEA Party favorite, won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in a contested primary in 2015, and a surprisingly easy victory in the general election, an election that the polls and pundits expected him to lose.

  11. Jeffery says:

    The semantician strikes again! What Douche McConnell described was a veto. The Republicans will only use their “advise and consent” powers if the NRA approves. Sounds like a veto.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery

    So this statement:

    ….he admitted that in HIS Senate, the NRA and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have veto power over SCOTUS picks.

    that you made is a total, complete and absolute lie and fabrication because McConnell never said any such thing.

    Thanks for letting us see once again that you cannot be trusted and lie all the time.

  13. Jeffery says:

    No.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    Figures.

    Jeffery denies any facts that go against his views.

    You got caught again in a lie, Jeffery.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Nope. You just deny the truth, Mr. Semantician.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5313 access attempts in the last 7 days.