- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 1,565
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Because the US Constitution requires an up or down vote by the Senate. Which means it cannot be filibustered since a filibuster would prevent that constitutionally required vote from occurring.
With regard to Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate should have held hearings and voted during the 114th Session of Congress. There is no constitutionally required time limit for a President to appoint a justice, but once nominated the Senate is constitutionally obligated to make an up or down vote. That Senate vote should occur during the same session in which the nomination was made, if possible. The Republican Senate was wrong to not hold hearings and present Obama with a vote on Garland before the end of the session.
What the Republicans should have done is conduct hearings from the time of Garland's nomination until December of 2016, and then reject Obama's appointment. Which would have been too late for Obama to make another nomination during the 114th Session of Congress. It would have accomplished the same thing, but it would also satisfy the nomination requirements placed on the Senate by the US Constitution.
As far as Garland was concerned, there’s also the idea of “advice” as well as consent. Obama did not seek any advice, so consent was denied.