President can do a recess appointment to make sure the court is filled if the Senate doesn't act. That is a way the President can bypass the Senate.

This pick is terrible (Al Odah v. US????). The GOP will block it anyway. That Obama sure is crafty.

Of course, the Senate will never allow the President to do a recess appointment because they will never adjourn for recess. HOWEVER, that is still a way to bypass a Senate that doesn't take action.

Those appointments only last until the end of the next congressional session. I really don't think this is what they intended. If Congress doesn't like the President's pick, they should vote on it and let him try again.

"Nothing in the Constitution forces the Senate to take action on a Presidential nomination."

They are required to advise the President on his nominees (to have a hearing and do an up or down vote). They can't neuter nomination power and also unilaterally change the composition of the courts without an act of Congress. The Senate is grossly overstepping its authority.

They can "advise" and "consent" the President by taking no action. There is nothing in the Constitution that states they have to have a hearing and vote. Nice try.

"Therefore, if they fail in their *promise* to block this nominee....they risk losing everything. There is really no point in voting for a party that fails on 100% of it's promises and 75% of the time gives you what the other party (minority party) asks for that they promised to fight against."

Yeah, interestingly enough, most of the time Congress has to govern or the nation falls apart. There's all kinds of ordinary, boring legislation that still has to get passed. So when one party promises to use their control of Congress to *not govern*, they can't really deliver on that promise. Then they act surprised when the people who got them elected on that promise revolt.

So refusing to advise is the same as advising? That sounds like it violates the law of noncontradiction there.

It's surreal as a foreigner to see a political party first turn into a hatred machine and then find its elite surprised that the dominant figure in that party becomes the person who most enthusiastically taps into the generated sentiment. Brings back memories of the darkest period of my own continent (Europe).

Is refusing to uphold the constitution the same thing as upholding it?

You were part of the hatred machine, redhouse. Glad to see you've turned a new leaf.

By not holding a vote or hearing they are advising. They are advising the President that they won't be considering his nominees.

Really Putin33? When was that?

You "judicial restraint" types really do love stretching the meaning of words.

"Really Putin33? When was that?"

Your 500 threads hating on Obama for some bizarre reason or another.

Congress can constitutionally refuse to govern. They're still abdicating their constitutional responsibilities by so doing, though.

A leading candidate for president happens to be a leading man in government refusing to govern. Murica.

"By not holding a vote or hearing they are advising. They are advising the President that they won't be considering his nominees."

LOL WUT

Part of my job is to review code submitted by Developers. Do you know what would happen if I sat on code I didn't like instead if accepting or rejecting it? I would be FIRED.

krellin seems to really have it out for me lately...

"By not holding a vote or hearing they are advising. They are advising the President that they won't be considering his nominees."

it's only march, but this is a strong contender for the comment of the year award.

So let's make all Senators up for reelection can't vote because they may not get reelected and therefore no longer reflect the views of their state. Until their voters have shown which candidate they want, those 34 senators have to abstain from all actions in the 6th year of their terms except showing their constituents around the capitol.

I feel like Garland could actually be a great nominee. He has an exceptional record.

Except that he's Obama's choice, so the Republicans and Obama's political opponents will fight against him being appointed regardless of his merits

This is pure partisan politics. Obama could have selected a Republican judge and they would have rejected the choice.