Obama, Senate have constitutional duty on Supreme Court vacancy: Sen. Leahy

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

Obama, Senate have constitutional duty on Supreme Court vacancy: Sen. Leahy

Reuters
50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and the U.S. Senate have a constitutional duty to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Saturday.

"The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons. It is only February," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said in a statement.

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/obama-senate-constitutional-duty-supreme-court-vacancy-sen-005654623.html

---

(Short article, no more at link.)

[itsrobert]

1. Also mentioned Scalia was from an immigrant family

Hmm, who is from an immigrant family that Obama may nominate?

[jmowreader]

2. Make two lists

List 1 is a roster of the entire federal judiciary.

List 2 is a roster of the federal judges who have two Native American parents.

Anyone who doesn't appear on both lists is from an immigrant family.

[DFW]

3. As illudtrsted by the following:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[GGJohn]

4. All very true,

however, tragically, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a timeline.

[cynzke]

5. Because One Is Not Necessary!

Obama is the sitting POTUS and as long as he is, it is his right and duty to nominate a new justice. If that justice is qualified the Senate has a duty to approve him/her within a reasonable period following a hearing.

[GGJohn]

6. It is thier duty to either confirm, reject or take no action,

there is no timeline on when this has to be done.

[Igel]

7. Don't just listen to the rhetoric.

It became common for a while to quote Obama when he said that Congress had to send him a bill. That was it's job, to send him bills so he could sign them. By not sending bills, Congress was derelict.

After all, his job is to sign the bills that Congress sends, and he couldn't do his job properly. And everybody jumped on the rhetorical bandwagon and said, "Yes, Congress is failing its job by not sending the President bills so he can do his job and sign them."

Then Congress actually sent him some bills. And in some notable cases he refused to sign them. People had an epiphany.

His job was suddenly not signing bills, but being judicious and exercising his rights as President to sign or not sign, to hold until the last minute and veto, returning the bill to Congress, or to approve the bill. To be the grown up, the nurturing mother, the everlasting father.

Congress has duties, President has rights, in that particular rhetorical universe. Of course, Congress has sole jurisdiction over its job, as dictated by the Constitution. The President is subject to the Constitution, of course, and, under the Constitution, whatever regulations Congress imposes on him that don't conflict with the Constitution.