"Read your Constitution, before you pretend to defend it. The Constitution says the President shall nominate, the Senate shall advise and consent...not Rush Limbaugh and Freepers."
Far be it from me to get into the middle of a furball, but it seems to me that the Constitution does, indeed, say that the President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power advise and consent.
It doesn't say that the President has to listen to the Senate's advice, but it also doesn't say that the Senate has to consent. Which means that the Constitution sets up a political dynamic, not a mechanical one. The President has no right to a rubber stamp. The Senate can say no. The Senate is elected, thanks to the Constitution. Therefore, Senators are subject to the public will and have to be concerned about the.
Nowhere does the Constitution tell Senators on what BASIS they have to advise or give consent. It only says that they have the power to do it.
So, if they fear their electorate, and decide not to consent based on that political calculation, they are perfectly within their power as written in the Constitution.
Being the President's buddy is enough, IF the Senate says so. If the Senate says no, then it's not. That's what the Constitution says, and that's how it works.
Miers was withdrawn by the President because he saw that the Senate was not going to consent. That's the system functioning as written.
That is a indisputable argument. We will never know how the Senate would vote...in the past they have voted for poorly-qualified justices like Renquist and Warren...but Miers was not given a vote.
Limbaugh and Hannity get to decide today. Yeah!!!! for freedom and Yeah!!! for truth...I mean Fox News freedom and truth.