Can Obama sue the senate to do it's Constitutional job?

[edhopper]

and would the Supreme Court uphold he Constitution and tell them so?

Wild hypothetical, I know.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Nope.

It's that whole separation of powers thing.

[dumbcat]

2. No.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Nope

The Constitution doesn't give a timeline on when the Senate has to act upon a nomination.

[tabasco]

27. True, but

a "reasonable time" is assumed in every legal document if not specified. Is the Senate prepared to set a precedent that A YEAR is a reasonable time? Of course it is, if controlled by republicans. They don't give a shit about their constitutional duties. They only care about gaining more power and holding on to it, which is undemocratic.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. Fair enough

What is a reasonable time, and who makes that determination?

[tabasco]

32. I think the Senate needs to pass a rule, vote within 60 days or the nomination stands.

Either that or a constitutional amendment to clarify this and a whole bunch of other stuff that needs clarified.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. A Constitutional amendment I could agree with

A Senate rule "vote within 60 days or the nomination stands" would be unconstitutional, IMO.

[AngryAmish]

4. Absolutely.

Winning, however is doubtful.

[SCantiGOP]

15. Correct

You get a prize:

You can sue anybody for anything, but you ain't gonna win this one.

[moondust]

5. No work no pay.

Maybe he can order the Treasury to stop the paychecks going to those refusing to do their constitutional duty.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

8. Violates 27th Amendment

And if Treasury specifically did that, the President and the Treasury Secretary would be impeached for bribery in a heartbeat.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. No. For instance, he can nominate a new Justice but the Senate is not required to hold hearings

let alone vote.

[Johonny]

7. No, in a sane world there would be no Republicans in the senate and their voters would hold them

accountable for the complete inaction of the past... 100 years or so. But Republican voters have clearly fallen into mass induced insanity so instead we just have to pretend this is normal.

[Trust Buster]

9. I want the President to file suit.

Regardless if it's successful or not, a lawsuit will achieve three things IMO.

1) Sue the same bastards that have sued him multiple times.

2) Keep the issue in the news cycle. One of the reasons that Republicans don't want hearings is so the issue fades out of the news cycle. I lawsuit winding through the courts would defeat this strategy.

3) Most importantly, force Chief Justice John Roberts to stain his legacy by endorsing this suspension of the Constitution. Roberts will know that this would be the first line in any historical rendering of HIS Court. EXACT A PRICE !!!!!!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. There is no

"suspension of the Constitution". There is no timeline laid out as to when a vote has to be held. Of course it should be as soon as possible, but there is Constitutional requirement as to time.

[Trust Buster]

11. I respectfully disagree.

The President SHALL nominate and the Senate SHALL advice and consent with regards to that nominee. Refusing to advice and consent before they even know the nominee IS A SUSPENSION OF THE CONSTITUTION IMO.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. There is no "shall advise and consent"

in the Constitution.

[PoliticAverse]

26. You made up a "Shall" which doesn't appear in the Senate part...

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court

[jberryhill]

30. It wouldn't "wind through" much of anything

It would be dismissed on preliminary motions.

What is it that you imagine a court would order "the Senate" to do?

And what is it you imagine would happen if they refused to do it?

[onenote]

38. It would make him look quite ridiculous.

It's not going to happen.

[Orange Butterfly]

41. I'm with you... There needs to be consequences

They need to be held accountable.

How in the world can the government operate this way?!!!
There has to be something to stop these fools from blocking normal government functions.

UGH!! They make me so angry

[DesMoinesDem]

13. Why don't you find the part in the Constitution that says the Senate is required

to vote on SC nominee within one year of nomination. When you don't find it, your question will be answered.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Exactly n/t

[SCantiGOP]

16. Damn you

Your introduction of facts is ruining a good discussion. This is, after all, the internet.

[Trust Buster]

17. So you want no lawsuit ? You choose surrender ?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. Let's see

a lawsuit with no legal basis, no chance of winning, and wasting money to boot?

Yeah, I'll go with no lawsuit.

[WillowTree]

20. I want no law suit. I choose reality.

[WillowTree]

19. Under what legal theory do you think this is would be worthwhile?

[madville]

21. Some many want to be dramatic about this

But it's very cut and dry. The Senate waiting is not contrary to the Constitution.

If Harry Reid had said he wasn't going to let a GWB nominee through the Senate in the spring of 2008 everyone here would be agreeing that it was well within his authority to do so (which it is).

[rock]

22. No

But he can make recess appointments.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Only if there is a recess

And I doubt that will happen.

[rock]

24. Well, how about this. I also had a thought about

a mandamus. Very similar to what the OP asks about. It's an order by a judge for politicians to do their job.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. When there is no timeline

in the Constitution for when nominees have to be considered, upon what will the "not doing their job" claim be based?

[rock]

37. OK

I'll keep trying. Thanks.

[Trust Buster]

28. I would still force Chief Justice Roberts to weigh in.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. President Obama would be out of office

before this ever got to the Supreme Court. And if it did get to the Supreme Court, they don't have to take it.

[procon]

34. In Extraordinary Session

The President has the power to call Congress or just one chamber back into session after they have voted to adjourn to consider a treaty of appointment he makes. This power is granted under Article II, Section 3, clause 2. The constitution says that the president can convene congress under extraordinary circumstances for as long as he sees fit.



"At times presidents have called Congress into extraordinary session to address urgent issues such as war and economic crisis. On other occasions, presidents have summoned the Senate into session to consider nominations and treaties....

On March 5, 1903, the Senate met in extraordinary executive session. During the next two weeks members considered dozens of presidential nominations and debated numerous treaties. Of these, two treaties received special consideration...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Feature_Homepage_Extraordinarysession.htm

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. And they can still do nothing

Bottom line, the President can't force the Senate to hold hearings or confirmation votes.

[onenote]

39. Two problems

First, as pointed out, even if can call the Senate into session, he can't force them to vote.
Second, there won't be a window for him to call the Senate into session. In all likelihood, the 114th Congress will adjourn sine die on January 3 and the 115th will convene minutes later.

[1939]

36. As someone once said

How are you going to get our consent if you won't take our advice?

[Trust Buster]

40. On a 5-4 party line vote, I watched the SC decide the 2000 election in the blink of an eye.

When the President makes a nomination and is ignored by the Senate, we'll see what their strategy will be.