Senate must not consent to Merrick Garland

[rotor]

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.

Obamacare passed by a "trick" in the senate. The shoe is on the other foot now. Elections do have consequences after all. The issue will be when the senate goes into recess, Obama can stick him in at that time but not permanently unless Hillary wins. Even then she may pull him out and put a more liberal person in. This is all just politics and nothing fair. Like Harry Reid and Romney's taxes. A lie but "we won didn't we". All politics.

[Jusme]

As I see it, Garland is a centrist on many issues, the Republican party is imploding and the likelihood of the Party winning the general election is fading every week with all the fighting and hate. They are playing Russian Roulette here. If Clinton wins, and it looks possible, she can nominate someone to the left who is even less acceptable to Republicans and they will be confirmed. Right now, failure to even discuss the matter is fueling the public's view that the Senate is a useless, do nothing appendage.

I think right now the idea being, if no action is taken on this nominee, if (God Forbid) Hillary wins, the senate can then take up the nomination process with Garland which would be a better option than anyone HC would pick. The POTUS selection has no statute of limitations. at least that is my interpretation.

[Jusme]

As I see it, Garland is a centrist on many issues, the Republican party is imploding and the likelihood of the Party winning the general election is fading every week with all the fighting and hate. They are playing Russian Roulette here. If Clinton wins, and it looks possible, she can nominate someone to the left who is even less acceptable to Republicans and they will be confirmed. Right now, failure to even discuss the matter is fueling the public's view that the Senate is a useless, do nothing appendage.

I think right now the idea being, if no action is taken on this nominee, if (God Forbid) Hillary wins, the senate can then take up the nomination process with Garland which would be a better option than anyone HC would pick. The POTUS selection has no statute of limitations. at least that is my interpretation.

[JALLEN]

Have you ever heard of withdrawing a nomination?

Usually, it is withdrawn when it is clear the Senate will not approve, but doesn't have to be.

[mojo84]

The nominee could also withdraw.

I think the republicans have done a lot of harm by being afraid to do what is right and trying to play in the middle because they are afraid of what might happen. The democrats don't sorry about playing in the middle and are as far left as they can while the republicans are afraid to be too far right conservative.

Playing not to lose usually ends up in losing. They won both houses of congress the last election and they still have been steamrolled by the president and democrat leadership.

[anygunanywhere]

The nominee could also withdraw.

I think the republicans have done a lot of harm by being afraid to do what is right and trying to play in the middle because they are afraid of what might happen. The democrats don't sorry about playing in the middle and are as far left as they can while the republicans are afraid to be too far right conservative.

Playing not to lose usually ends up in losing. They won both houses of congress the last election and they still have been steamrolled by the president and democrat leadership.

Being steamrolled over implies that the GOP actually stood up to the progs. The GOP rolled over and showed them their genitals like submissive dogs. There was no resistance.

[KLB]

I think the republicans have done a lot of harm by being afraid to do what is right and trying to play in the middle because they are afraid of what might happen. The democrats don't sorry about playing in the middle and are as far left as they can while the republicans are afraid to be too far right conservative.

Bear in mind that the GOP's hold on the Senate is tenuous. Many GOP senators come from relatively blue states, so I'm not personally offended if they genuflect in the direction of Garland for so long as McConnell holds firm. We will need the squishy votes for lots of things come 2017. Forcing them to come on too strongly now could cost the GOP the Senate.