Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (388582)	6/4/2008 7:17:42 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

"It was his right. But was it responsible?" Why was it irresponsible? "Was it consistent with the intent of the framers? Of course not." Not true. The Constitution is very clear, "with the advice and consent of the Senate". Bush chose not to seek their input before making the nomination. "They obviously never envisioned the "borking" of a candidate." I don't think they would care. They didn't seem to view appointment to a high office as a right. "If you want to talk about "advice and consent", perhaps you would want to consider what the framers meant by it" I have. I have even read the explanations given in "The Federalist Papers". "It certainly didn't mean that exceptionally qualified candidates would be denied a seat on the Court because of their ideology." You know this, how? They saw the process as a collaborative one. They certainly didn't want a situation where the president makes an appointment without meeting with Senators to vet the ones under consideration.