Should President Obama appoint Merrick Garland?

it doesn't. I'm saying there's a legal basis to claim that the Senate has waived it's right to advise and consent after a reasonable amount of time has passed and that the President can proceed to appoint his nominee and that would either force the Senate to have a hearing and vote on the nominee or risk losing a court battle brought about by their unconstitutional and irresponsible behavior.

The GOP Senators would deserve it too.

My point here is that the If the President were to do so then it would be the Judiciary that determine who's action is unconstitutional, the Senate or the President, and my guess is that the Judiciary would rule in a manner that would preserve its constitutional independence.

The only legal basis, is the one you've invented in your mind and no one can argue against someone's dreams. :D

If you feel so strongly about this, then you should encourage the President to file suit and let the Judiciary Branch rule on his complaint.
 
do nothing liberals want......works for me.......

I don't really care. I am delighted that turtle boy turned so many Americans against the Senate's, do nothing, republicans. He could have just as easily kept his trap shut, had a quick hearing and directed his minions to defeat the nominee by voting him down.
Or could he? Maybe turtle boy doesn't have the control over GOP senators we assume he has.
He was awful fast at declaring no hearing no vote. Scalia's body wasn't even cold yet. Lol
I'll bet he was afraid an Obama moderate could win the seat.
In any case,Pastor, it's all for the best. Clinton will nominate a left of center moderate and a Democratic led Senate will approve them easily.
Lol
BTW, Pastor, in your honest opinion, is Chopped Liver a racist, or not?
 
Back
Top