The Republicans refuses to hold hearings for any Supreme Court nomination made by President Obama during his last year in office. They claimed that in the last year in office, President should not be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. Do you agree with this new rule? Or do you think President should be able to nominate a Justice for the Supreme Court whenever there is a vacancy, and the Senate should hold hearings and vote on all nominees?
Constitution gives the President the authority to nominate judges, including Supreme Court Judges, during their entire term. Even one day before they leave office. Therefore they should nominate judges, the nominee should get Senate hearings and a Senate vote. If they don't like the nominee or don't like the President, let them vote "no".
"Nowhere in that document (the Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote." Harry Reid Is that true or is the Senator incorrect?
Well. Can it be Perez Vs new republican or just Perez new nominee in presential house is not Clinton this year ?!
But if it's Russian hackers in last election Clinton should take nominee or Perez or Sanders Vs Cruz in new election in oktober or september this year or my birth month august the new election if not Clinton gets her to presential house some first female president it should if maybe truelly.
It isn't that often that a Supreme Court Justice opening falls during an election year, so when it does it should be left vacant and allow the people a say through the electoral process...
Though I have to say they should have given the man a vote and then just voted no. It would have been polite the guy seems to be a good judge just not the one we need.
