McConnell reiterates that Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there is a vacancy this year

[JSRG]

JSRG:

The Senate has the full ability to refuse to appoint any judicial nominee for as long as they want–this may not be a good idea, and it may be a violation of norms, but it’s not a violation of law, nor any refusal to assent to the passing of laws.

Yes, I agree that the senate can refuse to appoint a nominee. In fact, the senate can reject every nominee until they determine a nominee is qualified through the selection process.

However, approving or rejecting an appointment and flat out refusing to move forward with the selection process is two different matters.

Why? Where does the Constitution require them to hold hearings or votes? The only thing the Constitution says is that for a nominee to join the court, the Senate has to give consent. It never says it is required to hold votes or hearings.

I disagree that it is acceptable for the senate to refuse a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. It is an obstruction of justice.

It is absolutely acceptable, nor is it an obstruction of justice. According to this, the first time there was an actual hearing for a Supreme Court justice was 1873. And the first hearing that was open to the public was in 1916. As I noted, hearings are a relatively recent phenomenon. The idea they are somehow constitutionally required when for so long they weren’t done at all (and until 1916 were behind closed doors) doesn’t add up.

If Congress says there are 9 SC justices on the bench, and only 8 positions are filled, then it is the senate’s constitutional responsibility to the people to determines whether a SC justice nominee is qualified for the job.

There is absolutely no such constitutional responsibility. You keep throwing out this claim there is some kind of “responsibility” even though it is nowhere stated nor even implied in the constitution.

 

[MamaJewel]

There is absolutely no such constitutional responsibility. You keep throwing out this claim there is some kind of “responsibility” even though it is nowhere stated nor even implied in the constitution.

Article 3, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
The US must have a concrete issue with a state for the SC to have original jurisdiction.

The SC establishes the judicial branch of the US government. The SC is also explicitly established by the US Constitution.

When Congress designates for 9 Supreme Court justice positions on the bench, it has the responsibility to go through the process of approving or disapproving a presidential nominee so the position can eventually be filled.

When Congress also designates hearings or a number of votes as the mechanism for approving a nominee, Congress has to follow its own rules.

Where does Congress have the Constitutional authority to break its very own rules in a procedure it has designated? If McConnell didn’t like the rules and procedures in place under Obama, he need to wrangle Congress to change them (Art 1, Sec 5, Clause 2).

The US is a nation “of the people”, and we the people have the Constitutional right to a fully functioning Supreme Court. A SC decision is often the only mechanism for determining whether a piece of legislation does or does not violate the Constitutional rights of US citizens.

Where am I wrong?

 

[Victoria33]

If you have majorities in Senate or House, you are able to make the rules and those rules are legal.

We saw this with the impeachment in the House so don’t complain now, divided on party lines. if the Senate has a majority. Play ball.

Senate’s job on judicial nomination is to advise and confirm. Period.

 

[PaulinVA]

Senate’s job on judicial nomination is to advise and confirm. Period.

Unless the President is from another party, a year before the election, in which case, apparently, you don’t even hold confirmation hearings.

 

[F_Marturana]

One of the votes to overturn roe was Judge White, nominated by JFK.

 

[MamaJewel]

Senate’s job on judicial nomination is to advise and confirm. Period.

That it is. It’s not the Senate’s job to shanghai the court, leaving a gaping hole for a year in one of the justice positions it has designated to exist. We the people have the right to a full bench so the SC justices can ultimately do their jobs hearing cases which are within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

People have business to conduct and we don’t have time to wait around a year without any procedure to determine if a nominee is qualified to fill a SC justice position so that very controversial SC cases can be heard. Time is money and the privileged elite in congress needhttps://sjc6.discourse-cdn.com/catholic/user_avatar/forums.catholic-questions.org/paulinva/20/14146_2.png to get off their high horses, take their silver spoons out of their mouths, and do their jobs as duly elected civil servants representing the people.

Unless the President is from another party, a year before the election, in which case, apparently, you don’t even hold confirmation hearings.

Which was very tacky on the Senate’s part. Each one of them deserved to be tarred and feathered in the public square of their hometown.

They get paid to represent the peeps, they needed to do their job which is stated in the Constitution.

Time to give each congress person the transportation stipend and daily jury duty stipend a juror in DC receives. For housing, I’m sure there are some section 8 complexes that have an apartment available for each rep to stay in while serving in DC. A SNAP card with a food allowance will work towards food. They can utilize college interns specializing in business, law, or political science for their staff. Oh, and they can get a Lifeline cell phone with 250 minutes and free wifi in their Congressional offices and section 8 DC apartments.

Power to the Peeps!