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

20 Mar, 2016 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

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 Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.