TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

AndyC wrote:

atx2a wrote:Looks like McConnell made it pretty clear again today that they will not even allow a hearing. Hope that's true.

I saw this: Mitch McConnell Cites ‘Constitutional Right' to Deny Obama on Supreme Court Nominee:

D.C. District Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s journey to becoming the next Supreme Court Justice quickly hit a brick wall in the form of Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitch-mc ... d=37692915

I agree in part with McConnell but I strongly disagree with his interpretation of the right to not consent. I believe that the senate should hold a confirmation hearing on the nominee. It is their job to do so, IMO. They have the full authority to say no to this, or any, nominee but they should hold a confirmation hearing. The nominee deserves the up or down vote instead of just hanging around without any word.

After all, by refusing to hear anyone, they are saying the President could nominate an effective clone of Scalia and they would not care. That is political obstructionism. Having a hearing and finding the applicant unacceptable is perfectly within their duties and the law.