It is not an appointment, it is a nomination. Do you know the difference?
You would know this if you had ever read The Constitution or a dictionary.
If Congress is in recess it will be an appointment.
There is no question you are a moron. An utter fool.
It is not an appointment, it is a nomination. Do you know the difference?
You would know this if you had ever read The Constitution or a dictionary.If Congress is in recess it will be an appointment.
There is no question you are a moron. An utter fool.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama already tried that trick when he attempted to pack The Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court slapped Obama right back down on his sorry a$$.
It is not an appointment, it is a nomination. Do you know the difference?
You would know this if you had ever read The Constitution or a dictionary.If Congress is in recess it will be an appointment.
There is no question you are a moron. An utter fool.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama already tried that trick when he attempted to pack The Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court slapped Obama right back down on his sorry a$$.
You sound an awful lot like Luke do you know that? He was always adept at slipping in that little racist stinger.
It is not an appointment, it is a nomination. Do you know the difference?
You would know this if you had ever read The Constitution or a dictionary.If Congress is in recess it will be an appointment.
There is no question you are a moron. An utter fool.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama already tried that trick when he attempted to pack The Labor Relations Board with liberal union activists.
The Supreme Court slapped Obama right back down on his sorry a$$.
Because the Senate was not officially in recess. Don't be surprised if McConnell uses procedural technicality and doesn't put the Senate in recess for quite some time for that very reason.
i would be very uncomfortable with a supreme court recess appointment.
i would be very uncomfortable with a supreme court recess appointment.
Given the obstructionist ways of mcconnell and company for the last seven years, I would have zero problems with it.
well, i wish people had more faith in the system. both sides. to me that seems to be the problem today and not without reason. just that no one seems to have faith in the system, the rules, the constitution. both sides. its all a big game. before the internet maybe we all didn't know it always was, i don't know. the lack of trust in this country is just disappointing.
Fine Jerry. You are being disingenuous. The people chose this President. Obama is the President of the United States and his duty to nominate is clear.
I'm betting that if Mitch McConnell pissed on the Constitution you would explain it away by saying... "He was pissing on the floor, Obama put the Constitution under the stream."
I have no time for your partisan ignorance.
We will say how This most recent naked obstructionism works out for the Grand Old Party of fossilized pig crap.
Again you show how you misinterpret what people say to support your own agenda.
Doesn't matter how many people voted for him, doesn't matter who he is, what race he is, nothing matters except what is said in the Constitution.
I have not found any reference anywhere that the president can not nominate a candidate, even in the later stages of his term, nor found any reference to how long the Senate has to make a decision about the nominee.
I will ask you this, show me where I've taken either side in this discussion. You are the one exuding partisan ignorance by repeating the "party line" even if it's totally wrong and misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I will ask you this, show me where I've taken either side in this discussion. You are the one exuding partisan ignorance by repeating the "party line" even if it's totally wrong and misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's hilarious. I literally laughed out loud.
I will ask you this, show me where I've taken either side in this discussion. You are the one exuding partisan ignorance by repeating the "party line" even if it's totally wrong and misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's hilarious. I literally laughed out loud.
LOL, me too. It is amazing the bubble some people seem to live in.
Below are copies of emails I have received this week from the NRSC (National Republication Senatorial Committee). I think they paint pretty clear picture of what the Senate republicans want to do...BLOCK...first they want to BLOCK the president from even making a nomination, and if he does they intend to BLOCK whoever he nominates no matter their qualifications. They call "standing on principle"...but what principle is that? Certainly not any principle that is based the Constitution.
Common to each (as well as in the statement issued by McConnell less than 24 hours after Scalia's death) is this language: "The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice". What they apparently refuse to acknowledge is that the American have already had a say...we elected a President to a 4 year term which still has almost a full year remaining, and we elected all 100 Senators who are constitutionally bound to vet/question any nominee the President makes and then vote up and down.
The first email was send using Mitch McConnell's name and calls for signing a petition to tell Obama not to make a nomination...
----------------------------------------------
From: "Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader"
Date: February 18, 2016 at 3:00:34 PM EST
Subject: A major decision
Reply-To: info@nrsc.org
Friend,
We are at a crossroads in American history.
Following the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, we have a major decision to make.
We can’t get this wrong. Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointees. The stakes are higher than ever, which is why we must not rush to appoint a new justice to the Court.
This decision is too important to be politicized and taken up in an election year. The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection process, which is why Senate Republicans are committed to waiting until after the 2016 election to confirm a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sign the petition here to send a message to the president and stand with Senate Republicans in waiting to confirm a new justice.
The truth is, this issue should not be partisan. The American people deserve to have a say in the selection of a new justice to the Supreme Court. I hope you will stand with Senate Republicans by signing the petition and standing with us on principle in this historically challenging time.
Thank you,
Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
----------------------------------------------
If you click through to the petition at the link above, you'll find this:
----------------------------------------------
Tell President Obama No!
Justice Scalia's replacement could tip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. We must not allow President Obama to politicize this decision in an election year or place another rubber stamp for his progressive agenda on the Supreme Court.
Stand with Senate Republicans: The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Join Senate Republicans in WAITING to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2016 election.
----------------------------------------------
The second email I received is a plea for money for the "Republican Senate Judicial Fund" to help pay for efforts to block Obama from even making a nomination...
----------------------------------------------
From: "URGENT@nrsc.org"
Date: February 19, 2016 at 9:13:43 AM EST
Subject: clock is ticking ?
Reply-To: info@nrsc.org
Friend,
President Obama and Senate Democrats are ALREADY scheming to nominate a liberal activist judge to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senate Republicans are our LAST HOPE to block them.
WILL YOU TAKE ACTION?
Chip in $25, $50, $100 or more to our Senate Judicial Fund right now >>>
The American people deserve to have a voice in the Supreme Court Justice selection process, but we cannot ensure this unless we have a Republican Senate majority after 2016.
Republicans need YOUR HELP to stay strong this month.
We only have 10 days until the end of February.
Send a message to President Obama and Senate Democrats by pitching in to our Senate Judicial Fund:
FEBRUARY 19TH SPECIAL: ALL DONATIONS OF $25 OR MORE WILL BE TRIPLE-MATCHED
Pitch in $25 or more immediately to help us >>>
Sincerely,
Senate Republicans
----------------------------------------------
So mule and jerry can keep trying to tell us that no one is saying Obama can't or shouldn't make a nomination, but the truth is that that Senate republicans are already working hard to usurp the presidents constitutional authority by trying to convince anyone who will listen that he should not make a nomination and if he does that nomination should be blocked. They prefer that SCOTUS be allowed to remain less than whole for more than a year because of partisan politics.
"Senate Republicans are our LAST HOPE to block them." They used the word "bock". Not "advise and consent", but "block." Just as they've been doing for years.
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by gondicar]
Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months
WASHINGTON—In a development that’s likely to cause fits for President Barack Obama, the Senate Democrats’ next leader, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), told an 2007 audience — on video — that he wanted to block any Supreme Court nominations for the last 18 months of President George W. Bush’s presidency.
That’s seven months longer than the amount of time remaining to Obama’s presidency.
The political situation in 2007 was a mirror image of the current face-off created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Bush was in his second term in the White House, and the Democrats had retaken the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. The incumbent president had already made two Supreme Court appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Schumer’s audience was the American Constitution Society (ACS), a left-wing legal organization. The society was founded in an effort to limit the impact that the Federalist Society was having on promoting conservative legal principles in American law schools, which are notoriously liberal.
On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:
How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.
Schumer is slated to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Democrats’ leader in the Senate after this year, when Reid retires.
No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months.
Once again, mule shows his true colors. He cares not about the Constitution, what he cares about is tit-for-tat political games...he defends the indefensible by acting like a 6 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and using the "Chuckie did it first" excuse as his defense.
Once again, mule shows his true colors. He cares not about the Constitution, what he cares about is tit-for-tat political games...he defends the indefensible by acting like a 6 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and using the "Chuckie did it first" excuse as his defense.
__________________________________________________________________________
Cute attempt to spin facts.
What is your answer to the salient question:
Why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months?
I should just keep my mouth shut but this is an easy question to answer.
its not acceptable.
now with schumer the situation never arose so what he said was more theater/hypothetical. we will never know if he would have followed thru.
with mcconnel it is also theater/hypothetical at this point. someone will be nominated. we will find out how that nominee is dealt with.
that was pretty easy. 😛 😛 😛
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by LeglizHemp]
but there should be an up or down vote at some point.
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by LeglizHemp]
Once again, mule shows his true colors. He cares not about the Constitution, what he cares about is tit-for-tat political games...he defends the indefensible by acting like a 6 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and using the "Chuckie did it first" excuse as his defense.
__________________________________________________________________________
Cute attempt to spin facts.
What is your answer to the salient question:
Why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months?
Already asked and answered, but I'll gladly answer again...it is not acceptable in either case.
Who here has said either one is acceptable? Besides you of course...you clearly think it is acceptable for McConnell because Schumer said something similar 9 years ago. Like I said, that's the rationale of a 6 year old, not a fully formed adult.
And not for nuthin, but your favorite polling organization Rasmussen has discovered, as posted by Bhawk above, that the majority of Americans want Obama to make a nomination and the Senate to give that nomination a fair hearing and take a vote. So I guess you are in the minority on this one.
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by gondicar]
Below are copies of emails I have received this week from the NRSC (National Republication Senatorial Committee). I think they paint pretty clear picture of what the Senate republicans want to do...BLOCK...first they want to BLOCK the president from even making a nomination, and if he does they intend to BLOCK whoever he nominates no matter their qualifications.
WOW! Thanks for posting. Why would the NRSC ask people to do what it should be doing - representing their constituents? Why do they need a petition to back up their position? Usually constituents petition their senators w/ideas.
BTW, Chuck Schumer was a senator mouthing off. McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader seeking to obstruct the POTUS from doing his sworn duty.
Below are copies of emails I have received this week from the NRSC (National Republication Senatorial Committee). I think they paint pretty clear picture of what the Senate republicans want to do...BLOCK...first they want to BLOCK the president from even making a nomination, and if he does they intend to BLOCK whoever he nominates no matter their qualifications.
WOW! Thanks for posting. Why would the NRSC ask people to do what it should be doing - representing their constituents? Why do they need a petition to back up their position? Usually constituents petition their senators w/ideas.
BTW, Chuck Schumer was a senator mouthing off. McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader seeking to obstruct the POTUS from doing his sworn duty.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mitch McConnell is not seeking to and cannot obstruct the POTUS from doing his sworn duty.
Obama can and will nominate anyone he chooses. Then The Senate will do their constitutional duty.
Once again, mule shows his true colors. He cares not about the Constitution, what he cares about is tit-for-tat political games...he defends the indefensible by acting like a 6 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and using the "Chuckie did it first" excuse as his defense.
__________________________________________________________________________
Cute attempt to spin facts.
What is your answer to the salient question:
Why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months?
Already asked and answered, but I'll gladly answer again...it is not acceptable in either case.
Who here has said either one is acceptable? Besides you of course...you clearly think it is acceptable for McConnell because Schumer said something similar 9 years ago. Like I said, that's the rationale of a 6 year old, not a fully formed adult.
And not for nuthin, but your favorite polling organization Rasmussen has discovered, as posted by Bhawk above, that the majority of Americans want Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to give that appointment a fair hearing and take a vote. So I guess you are in the minority on this one.
_______________________________________________________________________
Try reading The Constitution son.
A president may NOMINATE, not appoint.
The Senate has the responsibility to advise and confirm and if the nominee cannot survive the hearings they are not entitled to a vote.
The actual words, as written, matter.
And for the liberals here, The Republicans have not obstructed Obama’s nominees. The Senate has confirmed 201 or Obama’s nominees. Only two have been rejected.
Once again, mule shows his true colors. He cares not about the Constitution, what he cares about is tit-for-tat political games...he defends the indefensible by acting like a 6 year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and using the "Chuckie did it first" excuse as his defense.
__________________________________________________________________________
Cute attempt to spin facts.
What is your answer to the salient question:
Why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months?
Already asked and answered, but I'll gladly answer again...it is not acceptable in either case.
Who here has said either one is acceptable? Besides you of course...you clearly think it is acceptable for McConnell because Schumer said something similar 9 years ago. Like I said, that's the rationale of a 6 year old, not a fully formed adult.
And not for nuthin, but your favorite polling organization Rasmussen has discovered, as posted by Bhawk above, that the majority of Americans want Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to give that appointment a fair hearing and take a vote. So I guess you are in the minority on this one.
_______________________________________________________________________
Try reading The Constitution son.
A president may NOMINATE, not appoint.
The Senate has the responsibility to advise and confirm and if the nominee cannot survive the hearings they are not entitled to a vote.
The actual words, as written, matter.
Oh boy, I used the wrong word. I know how the process works, as does everyone else here. Sue me. Doesn't change what McConnell and his Senate croanies are trying to do, and your support of them.
And for the liberals here, The Republicans have not obstructed Obama’s nominees. The Senate has confirmed 201 or Obama’s nominees. Only two have been rejected.
This make no sense..."The Senate has confirmed 201 or Obama's nominees?" What the heck does that even mean? Hmmmm, maybe you used the wrong word there?? Let us know.
As for your assertion, you again provide no link or attribution for info you post and since you lie like a rug it is essentially meaningless. Also, saying the Senate has confirmed 201 somethings (or Obama's nominees?) and rejected two doesn't speak to how many have been blocked by filibuster or other blocking maneuver. So here's what I found in less than 2 seconds...according to Politifact.com in 2013, there were actually 68 individual presidential nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office, and 79 (so far at the time) blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147. That's means that 54% of the presidential nominees ever blocked from getting voted occurred in just the first 5 years of Obama's presidency. And now mule will assail the source without providing any alternative information and/or source of any kind to back him up in 3, 2, 1...
PS - I have updated/correct my incorrect use of "appointment" with "nomination". Was that your only objection?
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by gondicar]
Mitch McConnell is not seeking to and cannot obstruct the POTUS from doing his sworn duty.
Pulled from the email I received from Mitch McConnell yesterday, the entirety of which I already posted above:
"Senate Republicans are committed to waiting until after the 2016 election to confirm a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court."
And from the online petition that his email was promoting:
"Tell President Obama NO!"
"Join Senate Republicans in WAITING to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2016 election."
Tell us again how he's not seeking to obstruct POTUS??
[Edited on 2/19/2016 by gondicar]
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Well there you have it, son. 
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Well there you have it, son.
Where has anyone said that he couldn't, or what length of time the Senate is limited to?
I will ask you this, show me where I've taken either side in this discussion. You are the one exuding partisan ignorance by repeating the "party line" even if it's totally wrong and misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's hilarious. I literally laughed out loud.
LOL, me too. It is amazing the bubble some people seem to live in.
sorry, I don't think Billy lives in a bubble.
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Well there you have it, son.
Where has anyone said that he couldn't, or what length of time the Senate is limited to?
The important word is appoint. Try to keep up.
Thanks Jerry.
I want to be clear. I've known you through this website for more than a decade, probably closer to two decades. Even though we disagree I really do appreciate your arguments. Although you have never really changed my opinion, your views have, more than once, softened my opinions. I regret that I didn't meet up with you at the Bear's Den all those years ago. I believe I was in my cups at the time. Still no excuse for being rude.
I do believe that if we had met - you would see me as more than a caustic liberal voice. Posting on a web site, although fun, is dehumanizing. I think that meeting for lunch would have made me more human to you. I hope it would have added dimension and character. In my mind you are a Southern Gentleman. I mean that sincerely.
I also really appreciate your referral to Garden and Gun magazine. It has become one of my favorite periodicals.
Thanks Jerry.
I want to be clear. I've known you through this website for more than a decade, probably closer to two decades. Even though we disagree I really do appreciate your arguments. Although you have never really changed my opinion, your views have, more than once, softened my opinions. I regret that I didn't meet up with you at the Bear's Den all those years ago. I believe I was in my cups at the time. Still no excuse for being rude.
I do believe that if we had met - you would see me as more than a caustic liberal voice. Posting on a web site, although fun, is dehumanizing. I think that meeting for lunch would have made me more human to you. I hope it would have added dimension and character. In my mind you are a Southern Gentleman. I mean that sincerely.
I also really appreciate your referral to Garden and Gun magazine. It has become one of my favorite periodicals.
We've probably met several times through the years but just didn't recognize each other.
Now, for a view from a liberal:
From TheWeek website (for some reason the url won't link there) by W James Antle III
Every liberal should answer this question before ripping the GOP for blocking Obama's Scalia replacement
If you are a liberal who is outraged about the prospect of Senate Republicans blocking a potential Supreme Court successor to Antonini Scalia, ask yourself a simple question: What would you do to protect the essence of Roe v Wade if the Supreme Court majority on which abortion rights depended was at risk?
If one vote on the Supreme Court was the difference between Roe being upheld or overturned, what legal and procedural means would you be willing to employ to prevent its reversal? You wouldn't delay the confirmation of a justice who seemed likely to be anti-Roe, perhaps indefinitely? If the president was an anti-abortion, anti-Roe Republican and there was at least a 50 percent chance a new pro-choice president would be elected in November, would you really allow your anti-obstructionist procedural views to trump your substantive commitment to abortion rights? Especially when we are merely talking about using well established Senate powers and procedures to keep the anti-choice forces at bay?
When many abortion rights supporters in the Senate thought they were facing the possibility of Roe's reversal in 1987, they rejected President Regan's Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Left unmentioned in President Obama's happy talk about Democratic senators confirming Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nomination during his final year in office was that Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's third choice, confirmed months after the vacancy originally occurred and ultimately turned out to be the justice who wrote the majority opinion affirming the core of Roe in 1992.
When pro-choice senators again thought they were voting on the fate of Roe v Wade during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991, they bitterly opposed George W. Bush's nominee. While Anita Hill and sexual harassment dominated the headlines, abortion was certainly part of the urgency to stop the man who would become the second black justice of the Supreme Court.
Only because the Senate Democratic caucus was more ideologically and geographically diverse in the early 1990s than it is today did Thomas prevail narrowly, by a vote of 52-48.
Even after the blocking of Bork and the near-borking of Thomas, an overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans voted to confirm Bill Clinton's nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who sailed through 87-9 and 96-3, respectively.
Half the Democrats in the Senate voted against John Roberts, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Only four voted to confirm Samuel Alito. More than six times as many Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Alito, again including Obama and Clinton.
Even Scalia's unanimous confirmation vote in 1986 was partly because Democrats were reluctant to offend italian-Americans before the election and partly because they were preoccupied with the promotion of William Rhenquist to chief justice.
The point of this trip down memory lane and the opening thought experiment isn't that Republicans are without hypocrisy on this issue (all you have to do is go back and look at what GOP senators said about judicial filibusters when George W. Bush was president to see there is plenty of hypocrisy on all sides). The real point is this: It is well within the mainstream for senators to recognize the enormity of a majority change on the Supreme Court-at least as consequential as a change in the Senate majority, if not more-and act accordingly.
Perhaps recognizing his own openness to charges of hypocrisy, Obama implied Tuesday that his opposition to Roberts and attempted filibuster of Alito were posturing that didn't stop either justice from being confirmed. (The Senate was then under Republican control.) But he didn't say so during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. And even if his support for the Alito filibuster was tactical of insincere, some outside groups were seriously advocating it.
Given the trajectory of judicial confirmation politics, is it not reasonable to expect more Democrats would filibuster Alito today? They certainly will filibuster the Alitos of the future if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds firm on an Obama nomination this time around.
If ideology and judicial philosophy are legitimate reasons to oppose a judge's nomination-and given the Supreme Court's massive power, this seem reasonable-then presumptive opposition to an Obama nominee is hardly an act of unconstitutional nihilism.
The president has the power to nominate whomever he want to the Supreme Court. The Senate has the power to reject them. This doesn't require reading anything extra into the text of the Constitution.
We'll leave that to President Obama's next high court nominee.
{end article}
But isn't that why we want qualified candidates for the Supreme Court? So they can look past their politics and interpret the Constitution? If we let the uninformed passion of the people determine what is Constitutional I believe we will end up with anarchy.
I've heard reports over the last couple of days (off the radio, I don't have citations) that Scalia had actually asked for a more liberal thinking judge to be appointed. That Scalia wanted the debate of a great mind.
Once a Justice gets that lifetime appointment there is no telling which way the wind will blow. I don't even think the Justice's know until they do the actual legal scholarship on a case by case basis. Didn't Justice Kennedy turn out to interpret laws differently than his past record indicated?
Should the Court be hobbled for perhaps two years? What then of the checks and balances? Isn't this one party saying we will obstruct because we want a court that will put their finger on the scales for our side? Sure both sides will try to pack the court, perhaps that is why the Constitution says: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Well there you have it, son.
The important word is appoint. Try to keep up.
Actually the appointment comes AFTER Senate confirmation. The Prez nominates, the Senate confirms, then the appointment happens.
