Q: “JDCY Advice and Consent”
What should “advice and consent” mean when it comes to the Senate’s role in the appointment of federal judges? Why? What might be significant, if anything? Explain your position. Any examples? Regarding Obama’s fairly recent appointment for a Supreme Court Justice, what was the controversy about? What is your view on this matter?
Next, what about Trump and issues regarding his selection(s)?
Here is classmates posting from question. Please reply in 1st person point of view.
From Senate.gov, they would explain that Article II, section 2, would give the Senate the exclusive right to provide advice and consent to the president on treaties and nominations. They would continue by explaining that the Constitution would give the Senate the power to approve with two-thirds votes for treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate would be explained as not capable of ratifying treaties but would have a resolution of ratification this would be considered as the Senate giving advice and consent which would empower the president to proceed with ratification on a treaty. Merrick Garland would be chosen by President Obama in 2016, but it was said that before Obama chose Garland, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would declare that appointments by the president would be nulled or voided. This would represent that he would choose the Supreme Court Justice to be chosen by the next president.
Advice and Consent of the Senate. U.S. Senate: Advice and Consent of the Senate, 9 Sept. 2020, www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Origins_AdviceConsent.htm.
Elving, Ron. What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now. NPR, NPR, 29 June 2018, www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now.