Denying Supreme Court Numinee a Hearing

This post was written by marc on April 12, 2016
Posted Under: Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

There is a Constitutional question I’ve been wondering about. The President shall have the power to justices of the Supreme Court “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. But what happens if the Senate refuses to participate in the process as they are doing now with Judge Garland.

If the Senate refuses to advise and consent (as opposed to denying consent) could that be construed as a waiver of their rights and the nomination is not blocked? The question is if they have an affirmative duty to confirm rather than a right to deny. Is “not voting” mean a required “yes” is denied, or and optional “no” is not asserted? I think the phrase “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” mean that the Senate can participate and can block a nominee by voting to deny. But I also think that when the Senate says that they are refusing to advise and consent then they are waiving their option to participate, So when the Senate says they refuse to vote, as they have said, then the nominee becomes the next justice.

I think someone should look into this.

Comments are closed.