It is Unconstitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on the President's SC nominee

Yup.
And nothing in the constitution says the senate shall vote on his nomination.
Separation of powers.
The power to create rules and procedures is plenary, it covers any and every aspect of senate business, and lists no exceptions.
Plenary power. Every aspect. No exceptions.

Nothing in the constitution says the SCotUS must have any number of justices; as such, nothing in the constitution demands that the President appoint a replacement for Scalia.

Where'd you get your ConLaw? CrackerJack U?

 

The Constitution says nothing about plenary power. It doesn't even imply it, and in my analysis of the text (above) I accordingly refuted your claim (crickets on that point from you, of course).

The Constitution does not use the word "vote;" instead it says "consent." Consent is not an act of omission: it does not connote 'abstain,' 'delay,' 'defer,' or 'withhold' action on the President's nominee. "Consent," read in context, is clearly synonymous with taking a vote.

What's amusing, is that it is you who fail to grasp the principle of the Separation of Powers. The check on the President's power is the Senate's prerogative of "advice and consent." But again, as I argued above, it is the Senate's responsibility to exercise this prerogative, to affirmatively respond with acceptance - or rejection - of a nominee.

In other words, the Legislature's check on the President comes in the ability to reject nominees, not to stifle the process of appointment (which is what they are doing, if they refuse to consent, to affirmatively respond, to a nomination). If they stifle of process of appointment, they are attempting to thwart the President's power of appointment as enumerated by the Constitution; and THAT is a violation of the Separation of Powers!

You are wrong. The Constitution requires that the Branches be staffed with sufficient officers, in order to function viably. That is why they laid out a formal procedure for appointments, in the first place. It is true that the Constitution specifies no official number of High Court Justices. But it is manifestly the case, that the modern court cannot function permanently with an even number of Justices. For the sake of the integrity of the Judicial Branch, Scalia must be replaced. Deliberately delaying the process for his replacement undermines the power of the Judiciary (which is a co-equal branch of government). The Senators who are doing this are breaking their oaths to the Constitution, breaking the law, and in fact they are making themselves subject to arrest.

You are funny, I'll give you that. In fact I'd love to know where you got your law degree!

 

The Senate hasn't denied nor confirmed, and has simply failed to vote on, multiple nominees in the past. I don't think the idea that this is unconstitutional is fully accurate. The Constitution just says the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for confirmation.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I love that what the Constitution says doesn't matter when it comes to the 10th Amendment or Article 1, Section 8 (the delegated powers of Congress) but when it comes time for a President to push a progressive agenda, then all of the sudden what the Constitution says matters.

 

The Senate's a busy place, I'm sure they'll take it up in Committee by Sept at the latest.

 

So an obstructionist GOP is in your interests too- it's a mutually beneficial outcome.

 

[h=3]White House: Obama doesn't want to serve on Supreme Court[/h]
"The White House says Obama’s post-presidency plans don’t include becoming a Supreme Court justice.

...White House spokesman Josh Earnest says Obama would prefer to spend his post-presidency handling a wider range of issues than what the high court typically deals with. Obama himself said in 2014 that he doesn’t envision serving on the Supreme Court because the experience would be too “monastic” for him."

 

I hope he changes his mind as he would make a good SC canidate

 

Just wondering how long you think the Senate can refuse to do it's job...2 years? 4? 8?

There a cut off point?

The Constitution says the Congress shall "Make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Justices at 9 and it remains in effect. Reaffirmed June 25, 1948: Federal law... 28 U.S. Code § 1 - Setting the number of SCJ's at 9.

 

Why, because he thinks the Constitution is flawed?

 

cause he believes in the constitution....

it was flawed, allowing slavery, ect.. but it's a living document that gets better with age, the founders knew some things may need to be changed and set up ways to change them...

but I think what you really mean is he thinks some Justices views of the Constitution are flawed, yes, most feel some are on both sides, do you agree with row vs wade as an example? or was that decision in your eyes.. flawed?

.

 

Roe v Wade was clearly liberal judicial activism. Creating new law belongs in Congress. Both Jefferson and Scalia warned about judicial supremacy.

 

no new law was created, a unconstitutional law was struck down

sorta like marriage bans for blacks and LGBT couples

.

 

Yes it is, however it is also a waste of time to vote on it. We already know the outcome.

 

You really don't know how shaky the constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to create this new law was do you?

 

what new law?

 

It wasn't a "new law."

 

Article 1 Sec 5:2
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Where is the constitutionally specified limit to the power of the senate to determine the rules of its proceedings?
There is none.
Thus, the power is plenary.

Consent of the senate can be granted thru any means -- a coin toss, a game of cards, or best on 5 in rock/paper/scissors - nothing in the Article II power of the President demands that the senate vote on anything; in having the plenary power to determine the rules of its proceedings, the senate may also choose to not consider any nominee.

Noting in the constitution requires the senate to consider any nominee placed before it; the senate, with the plenary power to create rules for its proceedings -- that is, determine for itself how it conducts its business - can choose to ignore any nominee placed before it just as it can ignore any Presidential proposal of treaty or legislation placed before it.

Please cite the constitutional specification as to the number of justices on the SCotUS.
Article, section, clause and text, please.

Please cite the constitutional imperative that "the Branches be staffed with sufficient officers, in order to function viably"
Article, section, clause and text, please.

 

For as long as it decides to.

In context, what do you think this means?

Of course. This proves my point that nothing in the constitution says the SCotUS must have any number of justices.

 

...and bans on firearms in common use for traditionally legal purposes, as well as regulations that require the storage of those firearms in a way that renders them ineffective for their use in self-defense.

 

Paperview, and I, have already responded to these points. Address them directly, please, and stop wasting my time.

 

yes, they would be unconstitutional laws and the SC should strike them down, and when the SC does, that doesn't mean the SC created new laws, it means they shot down a unconstitutional law

 

I have. Directly.

The President has the power to make treaties. nominate federal officials and propose laws.

Congress, either or both houses, by having the plenary power granted to it, specifically, by the constitution, to make its own rules and regulations, is under no Constitutional argument to consider any of them.

Further, just as no court had the power to order the President to veto or sign a bill into law, no court has the power to force either/both houses of Congress to vote on anything.

You refuse to understand, and thus, you choose to be wrong.

 

the same as the president can't be told how fast to pick the next SC justice, the Senate can not be told how fast to approve them

congress has the right to play games if they have the power, which they do, they been doing this for 6 years, why stop now

.

 

good post. I'll just add that I quite frankly hate the fact that ANY branch of government has a say in what the personnel is of another branch. They are supposed to be separate and equal--well then why are two branches dictating who's going to sit on the 3rd branch? Lo and behold the SC has turned into a political branch rather than a judicial one. This is IMO a major flaw in our Constitution that needs to be fixed.

 

Are you saying SC judges should be elected?