The Constitution states that the President is to nominate to the Supreme Court, the Senate is to advise and consent. The two are completely separate and are dependent only in that the President must first nominate. The Senate is to advise and Senator Sasse is about to do so:
“One sub-part of your job is that, when there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you have the right to nominate someone to fill it. One sub-part of my job is that I’m supposed to provide advice and consent on who you might nominate. Mr. President, I’m here to provide you some advice on how you would get my consent. I recommend that you take your potential nominee and go and stand in the Rose Garden and have that nominee explicitly repudiate your ‘I have a pen and I have a phone’ theories of executive unilateralism.”
Laying down the gauntlet with a quiet shiv to the ribs at the same time – well done as there is nothing wrong with “strings attached for consent”! Please also note that
“consent” also contains the notion of “no consent”. Consent, regardless of what the Dems say (and their past CERTAINLY has lots of evidence (re: Chuckie Schumer of today is not so hot on Chuckie of 2007; for that matter, Obama back in 2006 would have the Obama of now siccing the IRS on him).
But Sasse makes a lot of sense.
(H/T: The Corner)
