"Advice and Consent," Democrats' Big Lie

Regarding Supreme Court nominees: Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has previewed the Democrats' efforts to rewrite the meaning of "Senate Advice and Consent." Expect Democrat Senators to repeat over and over on Meet the Press, CNN, NYT et al., that Senate "Advice" in the Constitution obligates the President to consult with the Senate BEFORE he nominates a Supreme Court justice. Failure to do so will be spun by Schumer and Pat Leahy (D-VT) as unconstitutional; or at least, against precidence. And Schumer is counting on a gullible public to buy into his big lie.

John Cornyn (R-TEX) tried to get out front of the Democrat gambit with a letter to the President in which he wrote:

The Constitution nowhere "dictates that federal judges be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate," as Senator Schumer contends. Instead, the Constitution says that only the President shall nominate. It has long been recognized and understood that the Senate's "Advice and Consent" role is limited to the appointment, and not the nomination, of judges: the Constitution explicitly states that "[t]he President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges." Much is made of the word "Advice," but the Advice and Consent Clause establishes only that the Senate's approval is necessary, but not sufficient, for the President to appoint an individual - just as the Senate's approval is necessary, but not sufficient, for the President to ratify a treaty. The Senate must give advice on a nomination or a treaty submitted by the President, but it is the President who must, both initially and ultimately, decide.

Schumer would have us believe he just wants to have a reasonable conversation with the President where he will advise that maybe. Luttig is too conservative, as is Janice Brown or that Gonzales would be confirmed. And then, after he advises the President, he would "Consent" to an up or down vote in the Senate. Hopefully most of the public have not recently fallen off a pumpkin truck.

But from the Boston Globe, comes the truth. Mark Pryor (D-AK) refers to future action by the Gang of 14 Senators who thwarted the GOP's "nuclear option" to end judiciary filibusters.

One Democratic signer to that agreement, Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, said the agreement will be tested if Bush does not solicit advice from senators and sends up a conservative nominee who could alter the power equation of the court.
''We know that if President Bush wants to test the agreement, he can send a very, very conservative nominee and not consult with the Senate," Pryor said. ''The more that President Bush and the White House consults with the Senate, particularly the Judiciary Committee, the less likely it is there will be a filibuster."

Unfortunatelyely the only way the President can fight the big lie is agree to take Senate advise. Perhaps he could call for written suggestions of not more than 50 words and then file them in the big circular file.