That’s the rating that was applied to Michael Bennet’s recent statement aimed at misleading voters to believe that the Senate is constitutionally obligated to consider a Supreme Court justice before the American people have had an opportunity to vote in November.
The Post also asserts, “Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.”
Youch.
Read more, here:
Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?
…
“The Senate shall advise and consent by voting on that nominee. That is what the plain language of the Constitution requires.”
–Sen. Michael F. Bennett, (D-Colo.), March 2
…
The upcoming battle over President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has both parties digging in their heels, with Republicans citing a vague precedent that nominations are not considered in an election year and Democrats claiming that Republicans have a “constitutional responsibility” to at least hold hearings and a vote on a nominee.
…
The Pinocchio Test
As you can see, there is no recent parallel to the current situation: a president filling a sudden vacancy on the court in an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, particularly when the vacancy occurred with nearly a year left in the presidential term.
But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.
It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.