Oh, the leftists are having a field day with our junior senator’s latest battle with coherence and articulation:
Republicans have never made it easy for President Barack Obama to confirm judges. But Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) came up with a new reason the Senate shouldn’t be filling empty court seats: It’s not our job.
Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) made repeated requests Wednesday to confirm a batch of Obama’s judicial nominees who are ready for votes. Each time they tried, Tillis objected and suggested the Senate shouldn’t be spending time on judges.
“What we get are things that have nothing to do with doing our jobs,” he said. “I’m doing my job today and objecting to these measures so we can actually get back to pressing matters.”
It’s a weird thing to say since it is literally the Senate’s job to confirm judges, as spelled out in the Constitution. It’s also ironic that Tillis is the one saying this, given that he’s overseeing the longest federal court vacancy in the country. There’s beenan empty seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for 3,848 days, or 10.5 years.
Democrats seemed perplexed by Tillis’ rationale.
“Of course confirming judges is part of the Senate’s job,” Hirono said. “In fact, only the Senate can do that.”
Tillis spokesman Daniel Keylin later declined to clarify to HuffPost why Tillis said it isn’t the Senate’s job to confirm judges. Instead, he criticized Democrats for “refusing to do their jobs” by using Senate floor time to request votes on judges when Republicans wanted to debate bills relating to veterans and troops.[…]
Are Thilli$ and Burr engaged in some personal contest to see who can give their press flack a stroke FIRST ???
It’s interesting how leftists have suddenly developed an interest in following The Constitution to the letter. Let’s see what that document actually says about the duties of the Senate:
[…] From its earliest years, the Senate has jealously guarded its power to review and approve or reject presidential appointees to executive and judicial branch posts.
In its history, the Senate has confirmed 123 Supreme Court nominations and well over 500 Cabinet nominations.
In the 19th century, the Senate referred few nominations to committees. Since the mid-20th century, committee referral has become routine and most nominees testify at Senate hearings.
The United States Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…” (Article II, section 2). This provision, like many others in the Constitution, was born of compromise, and, over the more than two centuries since its adoption, has inspired widely varying interpretations.
The president nominates all federal judges in the judicial branch and specified officers in cabinet-level departments, independent agencies, the military services, the Foreign Service and uniformed civilian services, as well as U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. In recent years, more than 300 positions in 14 cabinet agencies and more than 100 positions in independent and other agencies have been subject to presidential appointment. Approximately 4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate during each two-year session of Congress. The vast majority are routinely confirmed, while a very small but sometimes highly visible number fail to receive action.
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate’s response to each nomination.Views of the Senate’s “proper role” range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.[…]
Thilli$ is right — in a way. The Senate is not required to confirm a president’s nominees. The process laid out in The Constitution says the nominees need to be run before the Senate for review and possible approval.
The hypocrisy alarms are screaming over this one. The Democrats were notorious — with a Republican president and a Democrat Senate majority — for throwing monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the confirmation process. They ran GOP nominees repeatedly through the slander machine — beating them up terribly. Some threw up their hands and quit, while others stuck out the confirmation process and limped into their new roles.
Why should a majority break their neck to confirm a bunch of nominees from a lame duck president when their party’s nominee has a great shot at taking The White House in less than a year?
Though, it is hard to be taken seriously when you rushed through a radical Obama pick for Librarian of Congress days before taking THIS stand.