3 ms·
Possibly because they won't be doing it, or at least not going so far as to unconstitutionally refuse to hold hearings on Supreme Court replacements.
by SerpentJoe 10y ago
Possibly because they won't be doing it, or at least not going so far as to unconstitutionally refuse to hold hearings on Supreme Court replacements.
- bmelton 10y agoOn what grounds do you find a refusal to consent to an executive's appointment to be unconstitutional? As someone who's been studying the constitution for five years, it seems eminently constitutional to me as well as every lawyer or law professor I've discussed the matter with. Washington Post has asserted the claim that it is unconstitutional as a "3 pinocchios" falsity[1] [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...