3 ms·

> wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge The president only has a right to nominate a jud

by MikeUt 5y ago

> wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge The president only has a right to nominate a judge. He needs the consent of the senate to appoint one. If the senate does not consent, no rights are being denied.

happytoexplain 5y ago
Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year). >Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president
- MikeUt 5y ago
  So the senate didn't give their consent, as is their right. But you think the reasoning (or, lets face it, excuse) behind withholding that consent was somehow unconstitutional?
  - jfengel 5y ago
    It's not unconstitional. But neither is the proposal here. That's the problem: the rules allow a lot of things that are considered unfair and un-collegial. If that's successful, then eventually the tactics will be considered by the other side. It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      That's true, but the statement I was addressing was wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.

3 ms·

> wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge The president only has a right to nominate a jud

by MikeUt 5y ago

happytoexplain 5y ago
Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year). >Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president
- MikeUt 5y ago
  So the senate didn't give their consent, as is their right. But you think the reasoning (or, lets face it, excuse) behind withholding that consent was somehow unconstitutional?
  - jfengel 5y ago
    It's not unconstitional. But neither is the proposal here. That's the problem: the rules allow a lot of things that are considered unfair and un-collegial. If that's successful, then eventually the tactics will be considered by the other side. It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      That's true, but the statement I was addressing was wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.