Does it matter if people break their oath to the Constitution?

[kentuck]

How common is it?

For example, the Constitution requires the President to nominate a Supreme Court nominee when one dies in office. President Obama did as the Constitution required when he nominated Merrick Garland for SC
justice.

However, the Constitution requires the Senate to have a vote on the nominee and to approve or reject the President's choice. Mitch McConell and the Republicans refused to do their duty as required by our Constitution.

All of them broke their oath that they took when they were sworn into office. Is that a trivial matter, in your opinion?

[Horse with no Name]

1. No. It isn't trivial

Rachel was really good on this last night.

[guillaumeb]

2. People can rationalize all types of unethical behavior.

And most GOP politicians undoubtedly do.

And the corporate, conservative controlled media will ignore this issue, or will simply mention it without further comment.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. It doesn't matter if no one enforces it

Dems don't push back.

And I don't even know who is supposed to step in when the President breaks the law/violates their oath.

My fear is that no one will even try.

[ginnyinWI]

6. +1 n/t

[uponit7771]

4. Americans love the Constitution .... Americans

[kentuck]

5. Should Americans use it against the Republicans?

When they get all self-righteous about Democrats not doing their job?

[WillowTree]

7. Please quote the specific passage.......

.......in the Constitution that requires the Senate to hold a vote. For that matter, where's the passage that requires them to "approve or reject the President's choice?

A case might be made that such requirements are implied, but the Constitution really doesn't say that and a claim that they violated their oath by not doing so would almost certainly not hold up in court.

[kentuck]

8. I think it may be presumed from precedence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[DaleFromWPB]

9. Agree with WillowTree

I see it as the Senate version of a Pocket Veto

They're not required to hold an official vote, I think they can satisfy the constitutional requirement by slipping him a folded note

[kentuck]

11. Would the President be required to nominate a justice?

According to Article II?

[DaleFromWPB]

15. I would say 'Yes' but ...

There is no time limit or deadline written or implied.

He/She could be 'working on it' for however much time it takes.

I don't see any way for the Senate to compel POTUS to make a nomination -- the same way POTUS can't compel the Senate take a vote.

The Constitution assumes everyone will work together and compromise wherever needed. Nobody gets everything they want.

[doc03]

10. Apparently not nt

[Caliman73]

12. Not at all trivial.

That is what makes it all the more infuriating that McConnell is trying to say that Democratic Senators are somehow doing something unprecedented. It is the hypocrisy of the situation and the fact that no media is pointing that out to him.

There is no difference. Trump was "elected" with a slim electoral margin, and lost the popular vote and somehow he has a mandate to fill the vacancy. President Obama won both the EC (by a larger margin the Trump) and the popular vote, and Republicans are claiming that the "people" did not want him to fill the vacancy. They obstructed due process and their constitutional duties, for a year, AND they were planning to continue to do so had Hillary Clinton been elected. Both McConnell and McCain had said they were going to block every nominee put forward by Clinton.

[Lil Missy]

13. Only if a Democrat does it. n/t

[Initech]

14. They are doing it on an almost hourly basis anymore.

And I can just quote Donald Trump's twitter feed every time he posts something - it's worse than the statement that preceded it.