A Quote by Martha Minow

I understand the politics of the situation, I think that many Republican members of the senate believe that,get out the vote move. They can indicate that they're strong for their base. But the Constitution's pretty clear. The president Donald Trump has to nominate someone. The senate can choose to disapprove. There's nothing in their Constitution that says the grounds upon which they must vote. But to refuse even to meet with the individual, or to have the process go forward, that's just pure politics.
The Constitution says the President shall nominate, not maybe he could, maybe he can't, he shall nominate. Implicit in the Constitution is that the Senate will act on its constitutional responsibility and give its advice and consent. No one is required to vote for the nominee.
If you look at the Constitution, the two clauses of the Constitution make it very clear the president shall nominate, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It's been since 1888 that a Senate of a different party than the president in the White House confirmed a Supreme Court nominee.
The Democrats are angry, and they're out of their minds. You know, we're seeing in the Senate, the Senate Democrats objecting to every single thing. They're boycotting committee meetings. They're refusing to show up. They're foaming at the mouth, practically. And really, you know, where their anger is directed, it's not at Republicans. Their anger is directed at the American people. They're angry with the voters, how dare you vote in a Republican president, Donald Trump, a Republican Senate, a Republican House.
I am not sure we are going to see Republican Members endorsing Hillary Clinton. I think we will see plenty say they can't vote for Donald Trump. That doesn't mean they vote for her. They could either not vote, vote for the Libertarian ticket or write someone in.
I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President [Barack] Obama has sent to them. That's the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.
I will always support a vote. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate does have the right to say no; they do not have the right to say nothing.
While the president is to nominate that individual [to Supreme Court], we in the Senate must provide our advice and consent. This function is not well-defined. The Constitution does not set down a road map. It does not require hearings. In fact, it does not even require questioning on your understanding of the Constitution nor the role of the Supreme Court.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.
Moments ago, the U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence - nothing at all. Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate.
And the president is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote.
I think [Donald Trump] s got the votes for [tax reform]. I think he's definitely has the Republican votes for it, in House and Senate, and I think he probably has maybe 20 percent of the Democratic vote for it. So he could get it done with a bipartisan majority.
The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will undoubtedly leave millions of Americans dissatisfied about the outcome, conviction or not. What must not happen, however, is millions of Americans feeling that the process itself violated the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
I saw a Harry Reid statement saying, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to act on any presidential nominee. Well, that was back when President Bush was president and vice versa. So this is not a pretty carrying-on at the moment.
Under the Constitution, the president, not the Senate, nominates and appoints judges. The Senate has a different role. We must give our advice .
That Republicans now control the Senate means, of course, that they control the confirmation process. Their majority enables them to stop an unacceptable nomination at various points: They can deny the nominee a committee hearing; they can vote the person down in committee; they can refuse to schedule a vote on a nomination sent to the floor; and the full Senate can vote to reject the nomination. The Republicans' majority status also strengthens their negotiating position with the White House, making it more likely that a mutually acceptable candidate will be chosen for a given seat.
The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!