Should Congress have the power to refuse to vote on a justice nominee? Why or why not?

Law

1 answer:

Shkiper50 [21]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

It is the duty of Congress to have hearings in order to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee (as stated in the Constitution). This exclusive power rests on the U.S. Senate. The consensus, however, may be different and may vote against a nominee. Political parties within the Senate generally get in the way of who will vote and who won't, and vice-versa.

Explanation:

For example, Merrick Garland (former President Obama's nominee) was not given a hearing. Furthermore, Congress failed to perform the duties to have a hearing and decide whether to vote or deny a nominee. This is an example of how they refused to even vote on him. This is not the way government should operate.

You might be interested in

The Reform or Professional Era focused on the law and professionalism and crime control as the primary function.

Bess [88]

Most likely to be true

4 0

3 years ago

9. The U.S. has 10 million miles of road.<br> A. O True<br> B. O False

elena-s [515]

Answer:

False

Explanation:

The United States has about four to five million miles of roads, not ten million miles of road. Therefore, this must be false.

4 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Who thinks I shouldn’t?

densk [106]

Answer:

It shouldn't it's so entertaining!!

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which illustrates the proper outline for a judge's opinion on a case?

vaieri [72.5K]

The answer is the first one describing case facts, describing judicial opinion, analyzing law, applying precedent

4 0

3 years ago

George’s PTIN has been revoked as a disciplinary measure. Which of these can’t he do?

Alla [95]

Answer:

Option A (Prepare taxes for compensation) is the correct choice.

Explanation:

In the above question, options are not given. Please find the attachment of the full question.

A PTIN (preparer tax identification number) would be an inland revenue department Service identifier that was introduced in 1999 requiring all compensated federal income tax returns appraisers to registered with either the legislative branch as well as to receive a special code from 2010.
Here because the tax identifying number or code of George's Preparer has indeed been withdrawn and so he can't take responsibility for taxation for reimbursement.

The remaining three options do not apply to a particular instance. So option A seems to be the right one.

4 0

4 years ago