What interpretations are you talking about regarding bringing a nomination to the floor?
I said that the Constitution requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate for a President's nominee to become a Justice of the Supreme Court, and that the phrase is, at best, cryptic. The tradition I was talking about was that the phrase "advice and consent" has been interpreted to mean that the Senate votes on the President's nominee. What criteria they use in voting is, of course, up to the Senate itself and they could even change to not require a vote but, say, a coin flip (they make their own rules: Article I, Section 5).
You really should re-read my post. It's quite clear.
I actually think we have a history of, on occasion, not bringing a nominee to the floor, either through procedural maneuvers or simply by filibustering.
I didn't argue otherwise.
I'm actually not all that bothered by this.
I'm bothered with the politicization of the process and the fact that we are rapidly moving towards a system where unless the President's party has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, seats that become vacant will remain empty as politicials play games in Washington backrooms.
President Obama isn't simply trying to carry out his Constitutional duty.
Oh?
He wants to nominate someone who shares his ideology and change the liberal/conservative balance on the Court.
Is that not his prerogative as President? Is that not the prerogative of any President seeking to fill a vacancy on the Federal bench - to nominate someone he thinks is qualifies using whatever criteria he thinks are appropriate? Is there some list of criteria laid out in the Constitution or a requirement to not upset the liberal/conservative balance of the Court?
Republicans want to stop him from doing so.
It's the prerogative of the Senate to choose to vote him down or to simply not vote at all on the nominee. There certainly is precedent for the Senate to reject the nominees of Presidents in their last year in office - it happend with Johnson last I believe.
So long as neither one of them is violating the Constitution, we shouldn't blow this out of proportion. (Too late.)
Agreed.
So, while I'd rather see an up or down vote, I'm not bothered by this particular situation. In fact, I don't want Obama to have another S/C appointment.
I'm not particularly bothered by this situation, except that I think that politicizing the process is a problem and claiming that the President shouldn't nominate someone (as several people have) because this is his last year in office and he should wait for his replacement to nominate someone is bullshit.
Again, look at Mitch McConnell: he argued that the President's authority to nominate should be respected and his nominee deserved an up-or-down vote because it was politically expedient him. Now, because it's politically expedient for him, he argues that the President shouldn't nominate someone and wait for his replacement to do so and vows to not allow an up-or-down vote.
This his what I have a problem and this is what I'm bothered by.[/b]
