So, how exactly does this work? Do they have to at some point vote on a nominee?

So, how exactly does this work? Do they have to at some point vote on a nominee?

No...but will either have to make it clear that the nominee won't be approved (Miers).

Could give him a vote and vote not to approve (Bork). Then it would start all over again.

Time for a hypothetical to consider. It is November and Hillary Clinton has just been elected president and Obama's nominee still has not been voted upon. What will Congress do?

Time for a hypothetical to consider. It is November and Hillary Clinton has just been elected president and Obama's nominee still has not been voted upon. What will Congress do?

 

My guess, they approved President Obama's nominee ASAP.

Who do conservative Republicans want selecting the Supreme Court Justice Obama, Clinton, or Trump?

 

In my case none of the above but Obama is president and once he's done his job, Congress needs to do theirs.

In my case none of the above but Obama is president and once he's done his job, Congress needs to do theirs.

 

I agree, need to do it whether they like it or not.

McConnell was just on CNN and was using quotes from Biden and Reid when they, in the past, wanted the confirmation of a SCJOTUS to be put off until after the upcoming Presidential Election.

 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Joe Biden - it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee, and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

 

They even call this the Biden Rule

 

Harry Reid - "The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said on the Senate floor at that time.

 

"Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote," Reid said. "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."

 

And if the White House and the Republicans didn't get his point, Reid underscored it by saying, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch."

 

 

 

One thing I do like about politics is when EITHER side catching the other side being hypocrites.

While Biden and Reid wanted that to happen, what ended up happening in these instances?

McConnell is just proving he is a fool just like Harry Reid

While Biden and Reid wanted that to happen, what ended up happening in these instances?

In the Biden circumstance no nomination was made, there was a thought that one of the Justices may retire in the last year of GHW Bush's first term and thus the statement from Biden. Biden's statement may have played into the decision of the rumored retiring Justice to not retire.

 

When Reid made his statement was in 2005, I think Harriette Meirs withdrew her name from consideration (never being voted on) and later Alito was nominated and approved 82 days.

In my case none of the above but Obama is president and once he's done his job, Congress needs to do theirs.

 

This. But it's Congress we're talking about here.

Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Sacrificial Lamb | LawNewz

 

 

Obama nominated this man knowing there wouldn't be a vote. He is a moderate in the eyes of some that is very far left leaning.

 

He was nominated to the Circuit by President Clinton and was voted against by Mitch and a few other Republican leaders still in the Senate. So you can't say Mitch isn't consistent on this specific judge.

 

Plus naming such an old judge when other qualified younger judges were out there isn't a serious move.

Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Sacrificial Lamb | LawNewz

 

 

Obama nominated this man knowing there wouldn't be a vote. He is a moderate in the eyes of some that is very far left leaning.

 

He was nominated to the Circuit by President Clinton and was voted against by Mitch and a few other Republican leaders still in the Senate. So you can't say Mitch isn't consistent on this specific judge.

 

Plus naming such an old judge when other qualified younger judges were out there isn't a serious move.

Mitch isn't saying he is going to vote against him. Mitch is saying he isn't going to allow a vote at all. Not the same thing.

Mitch isn't saying he is going to vote against him. Mitch is saying he isn't going to allow a vote at all. Not the same thing.

 

So Mitch is going to do the same thing Harry Reid did for years. Not allowing votes on certain things.

 

I think Mitch needs to do his job. What says the Left about what Harry Reid did?

Mitch isn't saying he is going to vote against him. Mitch is saying he isn't going to allow a vote at all. Not the same thing.

 

Like it or not it's a power he has

So Mitch is going to do the same thing Harry Reid did for years. Not allowing votes on certain things.

 

I think Mitch needs to do his job. What says the Left about what Harry Reid did?

 

Like it or not it's a power he has

 

This line of thinking is why nothing gets accomplished...