A legal question regarding the Supreme Court

[PJMcK]

In another thread, a DUer Jarqui referred to McConell as the "SC justice thief." Great title.

But it raised a question. Could the Obama Administration have tried to sue the Republican Senate leaders to force them to follow their Constitutional obligations? Would the SC even her such a case? Were there any other legal options that were not pursued?

Thanks, in advance.

[Soxfan58]

1. I'm not legal expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night

My guess is no one ever thought anyone would be that big a dick.

[PoliticAverse]

2. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out...

even if a case could be brought and a vote on the nominee was forced they could just vote no.

And don't assume the Democrats in the senate would have sided with Obama, Harry Reid sided with Republicans
in an earlier disagreement between the executive branch and the senate when Obama was President.

There was no real legal remedy and it's not the first time in history a nominee didn't receive a vote.

[lark]

3. This is just a guess.

Obama thought the right wing court would rule against this, setting a really bad precedent?

[shanny]

4. the court at that time was split 4-4

[PoliticAverse]

8. It would have been 8-0 on this issue. n/t

[shanny]

9. Probably. I was simply pointing out that it was not a "right wing" court.

[unblock]

5. No point in it.

The courts rarely meddle in the internal business of the house and senate, but let's say they did force the senate to consider a presidential nominee. They can't force the senate to vote him through committees they can't force the senate to vote yes.

[RockRaven]

6. You can always TRY to sue; even though I'm not a lawyer I think I know how it would have turned out

I suspect that the courts (lower courts, appellate courts, and SCOTUS) would have ruled that the President cannot force the Senate to vote on something. The whole separation of powers thing. Congress decides their own agenda, what they vote on and when. Yes the Senate has responsibilities and obligations, but they answer to the voters in regards to those obligations, not the POTUS. Congress is bound by laws -- which they have passed and POTUS has signed and the courts have interpreted -- and their own rules -- which they've written and interpret for themselves -- but unless there is such a law or rule they cannot be held to it. And there is no law at the present time which says WHEN the Senate must give their advice and consent nor what happens if they ignore the matter entirely as McConnell and Grassley did.

[melm00se]

7. Get thee back to

civics class, review the separation of powers and reflect upon that.

The fact that the Constitution is clear on the "advice and consent" lies with the Senate means that no one but the Senate can make the decision on whether to provide (or deny) the advice and consent.