14 Feb 2020 4:34 pm
The Constitution says nothing about which party controls the Senate.Termin8tor » 14 Feb 2020 3:37 pm » wrote:Speaking of ****, he didn't claim anything about the Constitution, psycho.Misty » 14 Feb 2020 3:13 pm » wrote:McConnell reiterates that Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there's a vacancy this year.
Where in the Constitution does it say that in an election year a president can only nominate someone to the Supreme court if his party controls the Senate?
What a bunch of ****.
He's simply following over 100 years of political precedent. If the opposing party controls the Senate, that president won't get a nominee appointed to SCOTUS.
Say, who controls the Senate?
Is there a 100 year precedent to not even meet with a nominee or allow him/her a hearing?Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court.
This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution.
The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appoint ... Nomination
McConnell should have allowed Garland to have a hearing, and put him up for a vote.
Then his party could have voted against his confirmation if they wanted to.
But Garland didn't even get a **** meeting with any Republicans.