re: #121 EPR-radar

The Senate is not stopping Obama from making a nomination. If attempted, e.g., by passing a law to the effect that a president in the last year of office can’t even make a nomination, that would certainly be unconstitutional.

The Senate is saying, with an unprecedented level of dickishness, that all such nominations are pointless because none will ever get the advice and consent of the Senate.

Again, what exactly about this nonsense is unconstitutional?

The reason I’m harping on this is that if something is unconstitutional, one of the remedies to consider is filing a law suit. If something odious is constitutional, the lawsuit is a waste of time and resources that would be better spent on political agitation against the perpetrators of the outrage.

Plus I don’t like giving RWNJs easy points for swatting down loose talk about this being unconstitutional.

If the Senate refuses to fulfill their own constitutional duties and in doing so prevents the President from fulfilling his, is that ‘unconstitutional’? Their constitutional duty is to consider the President’s nominees and determine whether they consent to THAT NOMINEE.

I think you’re interpreting it so broadly as to rob it of any meaning.