The Constitution does not specifically mention hearings, but confirmation hearings are the method by which the Senate provides "advice and consent" as specified in Article II, Section 2. By refusing to hold those hearings not only for Obama's nominee, but by declaring a refusal to consider ANY nominee for the rest of Obama's term, they effectively undermined a critical power granted the President in the Constitution.

And then, of course, changing the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters so they could push through Trump's nominee was the cherry on top.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by BammerDelendaEst

Member since Jan 2014

2212 posts

Posted on 12/13/17 at 1:46 pm to Crimson Legend

In other words, hearings are not required, or even mentioned in the Constitution. So not holding hearings cannot be "unconstitutional".

In fact, in the past the Senate has confirmed some nominees, including SC Justices, without any hearings at all.

The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to refuse consent, which they effectively chose to do.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Centinel

Idaho

Member since Sep 2016

43405 posts

Posted on 12/13/17 at 3:08 pm to Crimson Legend

quote:
The Constitution does not specifically mention hearings, but confirmation hearings are the method by which the Senate provides "advice and consent" as specified in Article II, Section 2. By refusing to hold those hearings not only for Obama's nominee, but by declaring a refusal to consider ANY nominee for the rest of Obama's term, they effectively undermined a critical power granted the President in the Constitution.

Holy frick you need to pick up a book or two.

Come on over to the PoliBoard. I promise it will be fun.