You’re wrong. Blocking nominations by the minority is business as usual.
1 Like
Your misuse of words is leading to you lack of understanding. She was “nominated” by the President, but that nomination was not taken up by the Senate. It will probably never be taken up by the Senate because she is manifestly unqualified for the position.
If it is taken up, proceeding by unaninous consent can be blocked by one Senator. This has nothing to do with cloture because Judicial nominations cannot be filibustered. Lacking unanimous consent, the nomination must proceed by regular order, which is a lengthy process that both parties try to avoid. That said, the republicans control the Senate, and it would only take 50 votes to bring the the nomination to the floor and to confirm the nomination. As to why, see paragraph 1.
On the other hand, she was “appointed” by the attorney general as an interim USA. The question before the Court was whether the AG can make more than one such appointment to any position, to with, successive 120 day appointments thus evading Senate confirmation. The District Court said no, as has every Court to consider the question. This is consistent with Article II.2.2, which states
“Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
In the case of USA’s Congress has done all three: The President can nominate a USA subject to Senate confirmation. While that process plays out, or in the absence of a nomination, the AG can appoint a USA to serve for 120 days. If there is no Senate confirmed USA, the District Court thereafter appoints the USA. One of the most important questions that has yet to be answered by the Courts is whether the AG can thereafter fire the Court appointed USA, as happened in New Jersey.
Because the Lower courts have all agreed that successive appointments by the AG are illegal, SCOTUS may not even take this question up because one of the main grounds for certiorari is disagreement in the local courts.
3 Likes
appeal will be a loser. sorry.
Allan
Nope. Just can’t voice vote them.
“Blocked”
Blocked from a voice vote. You’re little Republican talking points state it clearly.
No. Blocked from approval. Otherwise, Halligan would have been approved long ago.
3 Likes
Blocked from a voice vote. They can always take it to a regular floor vote.
1 Like
PSSST… A USA is not an inferior appointment
Obviously not, or they would have.
Your own link explains why they haven’t taken it to a floor vote. Do you read what you post?
Don’t pretend that it’s that simple.
No really, it’s that simple.
Are you talking about the national guard soldier? I suppose in a way, if Trump were a normal President who left local crime issues to local law enforcement, then her mere presence was Trumps fault, but that is just a stupid position to take. That said, if the shooter were a native born American citizen who was defending himself from tyranny, would the answer be the same?
You are wrong about that. It is an inferior appointment because 1) it is not enumerated as a SAC in Art. II.2.2; 2) the position is subject to the supervision and direction of a SAC position, the AG; and 3) because Congress has provided that it can be filled by the Courts in the absence of a confirmed SAC nominee.
1 Like
If it were, this thread wouldn’t exist.
Your ignorance of how the Senate works is not my concern.
3 Likes
Because we have a few Senators worth of crap.
Not agreeing with the one. How dare they
If it were only ‘not agreeing’ that would be ok.
How about SABOTAGING anything Trump does.
See how many times that loser from Alaska voted with Democrats…60-80 % of the tme?
Who cares? TCongress isn’t subservient to the executive no matter how much you want everyone to be subservient to him
1 Like