A Quote by Patricia Ireland

Advice and consent does not mean rubber stamp in the Senate. — © Patricia Ireland
Advice and consent does not mean rubber stamp in the Senate.
Senate has to advise and consent. That doesn't mean you have to vote yes; you can vote no. It's not a rubber stamp. But what these guys are doing is, "Wait a minute, we don't have to vote yes or no, and maybe we can trick our voters into not holding us accountable for not voting yes or no."
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.
I do not intend to allow the Senate to rubber-stamp the president's plan to reward the Chinese Communists.
The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint, upon the advice and consent of a majority of the Senate, and it plainly does not give a minority of senators any right to interfere with that process.
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.
President Obama's decision to bypass the constitutional advice and consent of the Senate is not an isolated incident.
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 Constitution entrusts the Senate with the duty to provide to the President the 'advice and consent' for a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court. It is a serious responsibility.
Judges are appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. And it is our duty to ask questions on great issues that matter to the American people and to speak for them.
It is plain that, when it comes to inferior officers, Congress itself can pass a law sending these nominees to the President with him having the authority to put them on the bench without the advice and consent of the Senate.
What the framers of the Constitution tried to achieve when they wrote that Constitution back in the 1700s was an independent federal judiciary. They wanted federal judges to be appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and to serve for good behavior.
Imagine the word CANCEL being a huge rubber stamp in your mind. Stamp CANCEL on any self-defeating image you place in your head, and begin to think in a self-enhancing way.
AAP's Punjab Convener is not a rubber stamp.
The public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the 'consent of the governed' is meaningless... The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
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.
The chaplain of the Senate does not pray for the Senate. He watches the Senate and prays for the country.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!