Thomas Sowell compares his experience as presidential appointee to today's battles . . . "The Democrats complain, and the media echo their complaint, that it is the Senate’s duty to provide “advice and consent” on the president’s appointment of various federal officials. Therefore, according to this claim, the Senate is neglecting its constitutional duty by refusing even to hold hearings to determine whether the nominee is qualified, and then vote accordingly.
"First of all, the “advice and consent” provision of the Constitution is a restriction on the president’s power, not an imposition of a duty on the Senate. It says nothing about the Senate’s having a duty to hold hearings, or vote, on any presidential nominee, whether for the Supreme Court or for any other federal institution. The power to consent is the power to refuse to consent, and for many years no hearings were held, whether the Senate consented or did not consent.
"Nor have Democrats hesitated, when they controlled the Senate, to refuse to hold hearings or to vote when a lame-duck president nominated someone for some position requiring Senate confirmation during a presidential election year.
"When the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans made the same arguments as the Democrats are making today, and the Democrats made the same arguments the Republicans are now making." . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment