It is the prerogative of Congress to object to specific nominees if they feel the circumstances merit it. That was the case with Bork and other nominees in history. What Congress cannot do is take away the president's constitutional power to make nominees entirely. Judicial appointments are one of the most important long term things presidents do. It is what all presidents have done in the history of the republic. There was no specific objection to any of Obama's nominees. It was the very fact that he could make them. To use a legislative procedure (the filibuster) that is not in the constitution to undo a president's constitutional power is the issue here. YOu proved this point in your first comment here: "Obama was stacking the court." Yes, that is a president's prerogative.
Current Events » in reply to Odd.
Now I want you to focus really hard here for a minute
The whole thread (27 posts)
- America restores majority rule
- Restores? When was it not?
- Well I see, you guys don't mind when the rules are changed...as long as it's your side doing the changing n/t
- What Harry Reid used to believe...
- Well more like the Democrats realize their reign of corruption has been exposed.