5 ms·

How was it ignored?

JohnTHaller 6y ago
That whole "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part in Article II Section 2 that the Republicans refused to follow.
- rbecker 6y ago
  You mean they did not give their consent for a judicial appointment? Does the constitution require them to? Because "consent" implies they can refuse.
  - JohnTHaller 6y ago
    You're being selective. It's "Advice and Consent". The "Advice" part. They refused to do their job as laid out in the constitution.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution. You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"? Edit reply due to rate limit: > Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes". Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? So 4 years ago they "weren't constitutionally compelled to give advice", whereas now they're following the Constitution's "clear direction on the structure of government"? Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. I guess it must be one of those documents where you can do whatever you want and say it's what the Constitution says.
mcphage 6y ago
When they refused to bring Obama's nomination up for vote, because voting on a Supreme Court Justice during an election year would be wrong. And now here we are, 2 weeks before and election, and surprise! Suddenly it's alright!
- evan_ 6y ago
  Uh eight days before the election. Not two weeks.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    Eh, if I had said one week, someone would have complained. I rounded.
- JohnTHaller 6y ago
  During an election. We've been voting for days now.

How was it ignored?

That whole "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part in Article II Section 2 that the Republicans refused to follow.

rbecker 6y ago
You mean they did not give their consent for a judicial appointment? Does the constitution require them to? Because "consent" implies they can refuse.
- JohnTHaller 6y ago
  You're being selective. It's "Advice and Consent". The "Advice" part. They refused to do their job as laid out in the constitution.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution. You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"? Edit reply due to rate limit: > Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes". Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? So 4 years ago they "weren't constitutionally compelled to give advice", whereas now they're following the Constitution's "clear direction on the structure of government"? Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. I guess it must be one of those documents where you can do whatever you want and say it's what the Constitution says.

mcphage 6y ago

When they refused to bring Obama's nomination up for vote, because voting on a Supreme Court Justice during an election year would be wrong. And now here we are, 2 weeks before and election, and surprise! Suddenly it's alright!

evan_ 6y ago
Uh eight days before the election. Not two weeks.
- mcphage 6y ago
  Eh, if I had said one week, someone would have complained. I rounded.
JohnTHaller 6y ago
During an election. We've been voting for days now.