[Tupelo]

SHALL appoint in the Constitution trumps any and all Senate “Resolutions”. Which ain’t really worth the paper they are printed on.

The Senate can and sometimes (very rarely) reject a nominee. I am sure back in the distant past a Republican Senate rejected a Democrat president’s Supreme Court nominee, but for the life of me, I cannot remember even one.

However I do agree with the article, the late Justice Scalia would want ALL of them, the Court, President and Senate to follow the Constitution. TO THE LETTER.
We may not like it, but it is there. As the writer says, we should follow the what the Constitution says, not what we want it to say.

[Ken H]

The Senate is not required to do anything.

If they refuse to act on the nominee, nobody's going to stop them. (said with a nod to Yogi)

[GOPJ]

S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

[ontap]

They did it twice to Richard Nixon!!!!They did it to Robert Bork. It's how we got David Souter and Ginsburg. The dems are doing what they always do...change the rules to suit there agenda.