quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

You have yet to show how anything McConnell did was in any way unconstitutional

You have shared opinion, nothing more.

IThe Constitution is pretty clear to me in what it says. The heritage Foundation lays out the arguument quite clearly.

Instead of providing Advice and Consent on the president's nominee, Mitch McConnell arbitrarily set a 3-year limit on the President's powers, contrary to what is prescrbied in the Constitution.

I don't know how I can show it more clearly than that.

By citing a law, or citing the part of the constitution that backs up your opinion, and the opinion of the Heritage Foundation - which prior to now you disparaged facts presented by any right-leaning source in very harsh terms

What happened to change that, so that mere opinion on a right-wing source is supposed to carry all of the weight of god himself or whatever

Regardless - cite the law itself. Cite something more than opinion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Article II, Section 2 does not lay out any specific procedure by which the Senate can refuse its consent. It does not indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider the president’s nominee at all. ~Source

You are correct. Section 2 does not lay out any specific procedure by wich the Senate can refuse its consent. However, it DOES specify the SCOPE of the Advice and Coonset, which the Senate can give. (Which is to the nominee. (NOT the process as a whole)

It doesn't "specify" anything of the kind:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. ~Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

There is NOTHING in Section 2 which gives the Senate the power to NOT consider the nominee at all.

You are contradicting yourself: "Section 2 does not lay out any specific procedure by wich the Senate can refuse its consent."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Acoording to my and the Heritage Foundation's interpretation, must confirm the nominee or reject the nominee ONLY for a compelling reason.

To "interpret" a law to "mean" something that it does not say is to abandon the rule of law altogether.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

To be fair, it seems he understands just fine, and that you two disagree on this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Nonetheless, it's a shitty precedent.

One I hope gets shoved up McConnell's ass in the coming years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

McConnell's stonewalling of Merrick Garland probably did lie within the letter of the law.

Then again, "Well, it wasn't actually illegal" is a pretty low bar for serving the citizenry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Everything is an R in your world.

For the 82% of Americans who aren't registered Republicans, things look differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We'll just wait until the Rs are in a position to do nothing but watch.

You'll immediately change your tune to the new talking points of the day, always a faithful parrot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And you believe the story ends here.

Sure, sure. Cling to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, we're gonna need more guns then.

See you later -- gotta go down to Wal-Mart and stock up.