Timeline for Why are SCOTUS appointee Senate hearings not mandatory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 17:25 | history | edited | Drunk Cynic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 556 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 17:13 | comment | added | user5155 | @cpast To highlight the problem of discerning intent, a lack of action could be construed to mean "consent". I do not argue that is the case here, but for example if Congress passes a bill and the president does nothing the bill as written would still become law. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 17:05 | comment | added | cpast | Alternatively, you could say that the Constitution doesn't provide any specific mechanism for denying consent, and that the Senate made it fairly clear that they did not consent to Garland's nomination. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 15:59 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | @jalynn2 The Constitution is a combination of directive, restrictive, and permissive statements. Directive uses some variant of phrasing including "Shall," while restrictive uses similar phrasing modified with a negative "no, not, etc.." The portion of this clause directing the President to obtain the Advice and Consent of the Senate, restricts the powers of the President while endowing the Senate with the permissive authority to provide Advice and Consent. There is not a directive declaration in the Constitution stating "the Senate shall provide Advice." | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:12 | comment | added | David says Reinstate Monica | @jalynn2 There are many viewpoints on how to interpret the constitution. Take for example textualism and originalism; those are direct opposites on what you said. These are the approaches used by some of the supreme court justices, so they would say you are flat out wrong. Simply put, how do you know the intent of the founding fathers? Why is your opinion of intent better than someone elses? | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 12:41 | comment | added | jalynn2 | Actually, it doesn't make sense. The Constitution is a very tersely-written document, using relatively plain language instead of water-tight legalese. As a result it is open to interpretation. But when it says that the President "Shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint", it seems clear that the founders expected the Senate to take action on a nomination. Partisans can twist the words to suit their own agenda, but that doesn't mean they are abiding by the intent of the Constitution. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 5:21 | comment | added | user1530 | Oh! Gotcha. Yes, that makes sense. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 5:16 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | @blip Advice and Consent are required to appoint the individual nominated, but there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that every individual nominated be given a hearing. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 4:02 | comment | added | user1530 | Doesn't that say just the opposite...that the Senate does have to approve via consent? | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 3:59 | history | answered | Drunk Cynic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |