|
In response to
"sure, and the precedent is there that some lawyer told McConnell he didn't have to hold a hearing for Obama's nominee."
by
Max
|
But again that example is not at all apples and oranges
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
Sep 25 '19, 14:04
|
The constitution does not say that the senate MUST consent and it certainly says nothing at all that it MUST hold hearings
I’d be comfortable telling Mitch “while your actions do not break any law, they threaten and subvert the political order”
Here we have a text that actually limits under what circumstances the house may pass articles of impeachment - it’s fundamentally different. Which is why while we’ve seen people calling Mitch our on the BS of no vote on election years etc I have not seen a respected constitutional lawyer saying the senate had a legal constitutional obligation to hold a hearing
Did I miss it?
As to the second question the consequence could be removal or other sanction
Advice of counsel is one of the best legal defenses in the book. It gave W a good cover for torture
Disregarding advice of counsel is a perilous decisionthat itself does not carry consequences beyond those of the act at issue itself
|