Advice and Consent
The President’s trip to Scotland for the G-8 summit has given Democrats and Republicans alike the opportunity to begin laying the groundwork for their strategies regarding the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by Justice O’Connor’s resignation earlier in the week.
Today, Democrats criticized
Durbin, the Democratic Whip and one of the leading spokesmen for the party, welcomed the White House effort "to reach out in a bipartisan manner and actively consult" with lawmakers from both parties. Other Democrats, notably Sen. Kennedy, were critical of the WH efforts to reach across party lines. Kennedy said:
"To be meaningful, consultation should include who the president is really considering so we can give responsive and useful advice."
It seems that the WH can’t win on this one in the eyes of the Democrats in the Senate. During this early stage of the vetting process, the WH seems to be working with Senators from both parties to ensure that there is a flow of information that can help prevent a return of the nuclear option over whomever is the nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
While I agree with Senator Kennedy that names will need to be shared with Congressional leaders if the true meaning of “advice and consent” is to be met. However, it may not yet be time for the WH to disclose the names of potential nominees and they should be congratulated on the attempts to reach across partisan lines -- at least for now.
posted by Unknown @ 11:47 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
he does not have to tell them in advance of nominating them. Most presidents dont.
also, if he consulted with them do you think they would actually approve of any conservative? proabaly not. And if Bush then nominated the person anyway, the Dems would scream that Bush ignored their consultation.
This is all BS.
Advise and Consent is the mandate given to the Congress by the Constitution. It is good that the President has reached across the isle and consulted with Democrats. Let's all be patient to see what unfolds before we start throwing accusations around. As they say in the song, “Give peace a chance!” It doesn’t help to preposition oneself unless you don’t want to be listened to.
I am hoping someone will be chosen that can be seen as a moderate. I am also hopeful this initial reaching across the isle will result in a good process for the review of the nominated candidate. That’s what we deserve as Americans.
Article 2 Section 2 says: “The President…, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,… shall appoint Ambassadors….” How, exactly, is this a mandate to the Congress? It looks to me like a mandate to the President. In which case, it is nothing less than the President's sworn duty to seek the advice of the Senate -- whether he elects to take any particular bit of advice or not.
The Senate has the mandate to provide consent to the President's nomination or not. If the Senate doesn't approve of the nominee they can vote not to approve. The President has the mandate to nominate for appointment.
charles
you want a moderate, i hope you are not disapointed when Bush nominates a conservative. There is no good reason for him to nominate anything but a conservative.
would you accept a conservative?
advise and consent, is not about some phone call. It also does not mean you HAVE to consult with the opposition party. Clinton only spoke with the opposition party after he had problems. Most importantly, it only makes sense to consult witht the opposition party when they are the majority.
Yes, I could support any conservative, as long as they didn't divide the country any more. O'Conner is an often cited example. Being a centrist I am more inclined to support those moderates of any party. But as you know and the Senate has stated the group of 14 allows for the use of the filibuster in extraodinary situations. I will watch the debate and offer my own views when the President nominates the replacement (s).
Post a Comment
<< Home