Nominee for POTUS: refusal to consider a nominee for an extended period of time may be legal grounds to imply consent, as no objections were made. Constitution: "appointments shall be made with advice & consent".. No vote required
This would create a doublethink (not that in modern politics that is a bad thing). Yes means yes (affirmative consent) for sex and not no means yes (passive consent) for politics. Double think is ++ungood.
Interesting reply. Ty
You are suggesting a change in the interpretation of the meaning of Consent.
Now it requires a Senate vote. By the time it could be presented to the SCOTUS the election will be over and the Senate would have acted.
Btw, this is a political maneuver that either party would utilize it similar situations.
I'm not advocating anything actually. I just found this to be an interesting POV that had some merit in logic. Am I against it. Hard call. A 4-4 Supreme Court has already come back with some poor decisions IMHO. I do think they need to consider candidates and either reject them or confirm them.
Aww but the article points out that if a dem takes office it could get to be even delayed further, quite a bit further.
Yes means yes.
Personally, I wouldn't be a fan of establishing that precedent. It might make sense in this particular situation, but in the wrong hands could be unwieldy. If the vote doesn't matter, then over time what's deemed and accepted as an "extended period of time" will shorten. That possibility would give me pause.
Maybe but it is easily stopped by just saying yes or no.
Not POTUS ack!!!! Darn. SCOTUS I mean!!!!!!