Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
If the majority leader usurped the power of the Senate, I don't think they'd have any trouble rebuking the majority leader. It's not a political question or a separation of powers issue because the issue is an individual senator aggrandizing himself at the expense of the senate as a whole. So too if they attempted to seat an appointee only voted on by the judiciary committee. But I don't think they can go beyond something like "genuine action of the Senate."
But none of that presents the same questions as the Senate simply refusing to act.
|
I guess your answer is:
If the Senate refuses to act this year, next year, until the end of time (or whatever), and there was a suit brought based on that inaction, the Supreme Court would not be able to interpret what "advise and consent" means or establish a minimum test.
Obviously my hypothetical isn't perfect. I tried to shift the question to get some sort of understanding of when you think the Court can act to interpret the clause at issue.
So far, I've heard:
- Complete Inaction by Senate for as long as they please: Court can't decide
- Action by Senate so ridiculous that it's pointless to pose the hypothetical: Court can decide
TM
