http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-scotus-pick-the-constitution-pretty-clear said:
Many Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have said the next president should nominate Scalia’s successor, and some have vowed to block hearings for any Obama nominee.
But “the Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Obama said Tuesday after a speech at the U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit at Rancho Mirage, California. “When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president of the United States is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nominee, and either they disapprove of the nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court.”
“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” Obama said.
Hmmmm...is there any limit to some folks willing credulity, especially when Obama's busy mouthing more feather-weight talking points? You know, for a fellow who was allowed to teach constitutional law part-time, his constitutional ignorance and/or shameless prevarication is surprisingly as bad as that of Donald Trump.
The Constitution (Article II, Section 2) is very clear:
[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.
"The Barrack" can and shall nominate to the Supreme Court, including in his last year. But "the Barrack" can and shall only nominate, not necessarily appoint. The Constitution states that to “appoint” he has to have the actual consent of the Senate.
Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate must take an up or down vote, or consent; nor does it prohibit the with-holding of consent for partisan reasons. And Nothing says how the Senate may with-hold consent, or says that it must act at all.
There is nothing in legal history to suggest an obligation to act, nor that they must "disapprove of the nominee or (then) that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court.”. Wrong. The Constitution REQUIRES an affirmative act of approval to appoint, that is the Senates consent - without it, the nomination is dead.
Adam White examined the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution and found “no indication of any expectation that the Senate would be required the vote on a President’s nominees.”
The Framers expressly based the Constitution’s “advice and consent” model on the approach used in Massachusetts, under the State’s Constitution of 1780. And, looking through years of archived nomination files, I found myriad examples of nominations made by the governor that received no up-or-down vote from the “Privy Council,” the body that provided constitutional advice and consent.
But the best evidence of the Senate’s power not to vote on nominations is found in the Framers’ rejection of an alternative approach to appointments. As an alternative to the “advice and consent” model, James Madison proposed a discretionary Senate veto. Under that plan, a president’s nominees would automatically be appointed unless the Senate mustered a majority vote against that nomination within a fixed number of days.
In short, Madison would have put the burden on the Senate, to affirmatively act to block a nomination. But the Framers rejected his proposal, and chose instead the “advice and consent” model, placing the burden on the president (and his supporters) to convince the Senate to confirm his nominee.
What about Senate practice when it comes to dealing with Supreme Court nominees?
Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-c...enate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf
Can Obama show us the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee? Can you?
Of course not.
Finally, Obama's comments are rather brazenly hypocritical. In 2006 he joined a filibuster of 24 to obstruct a Senate vote on Alito's approval or disapproval - to block a vote on consent:
Obama told reporters he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.".
Pot...meet kettle.
