Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

So you think the Founding Fathers didn't know how to write a Constitution? How have we ever survived since 1781?

he [the president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Blocking Republican nominees for no reason is picking a fight.

How do you know they had no reasons?

Refusal to consider is not "advising". Which the Constitution says you must do, and they didn't. The first Congress in American history.

Since Democrats took control of Congress a year ago, the battle of wills over nominations has left many high-level vacancies unfilled throughout the federal government. For example, the Federal Election Commission is unable to act officially because it does not have the required quorum.

During his presidency, Clinton nominated 45 people for 42 different federal district judgeships to federal district courts who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Like the appellate court nominations mentioned above, many of these nominees were blocked by Republicans either in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans for six of the eight years of Clinton’s presidency, or on the Senate floor, where one nominee, Ronnie L. White, was defeated by senators.

Of the 42 federal district judgeship vacancies in question, 17 eventually were filled with different Clinton nominees, 24 were filled by nominees of President George W. Bush and one never ended up becoming vacant because the district judge holding it never received confirmation to be elevated to an appellate court.

All of Bush's appointments were discussed in the appropriate Senate committee,

Some of them didn't pass. This is normal for both parties.

I attribute no significance to the question of whether or not they were discussed in committee.

It wasn't a case of some not passing. The Democrats blocked a huge number of nominees for no reason at all.

So you therefore attribute no significance to whether the Senate follows the Constitution and "advises" on the presidential nominees, which the Senate did since the Founders' days until the Republicans under Mitch McConnell decided to depart from their Constitutional responsibility.

And the Republicans blocked a large number of Clinton's appointments for no reason at all.

The Republicans are pretending that a normal course of events-many presidential nominees not being passed by the Senate-is unusual and therefore justified their nefarious action of ignoring the Constitution and refusing to even consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland until after the election, where they hoped a Republican would be in office.

I think the Republicans followed the Constitution just fine. Refusing to consider a nominee is just a way of rejecting that nominee.

Nothing like what the Democrats did to Bush in 2007 and 2008.

If it was OK for the Democrats to do it to Bush, it was OK for the Republicans to do it to Obama.

On the contrary, exactly like what happened in 2007 and 2008. Dozens of Clinton's appointees turned down during his term, dozens of Bush's appointees turned down during his terms. Normal checks and balances.

The Democrats didn't do it to Bush. They rejected many of his nominations, but they always fulfilled their Constitutional duty to "advise" the president on the nomination by discussing it in committee.

Blocking Bush's nominations counts as blocking his nominations.

But the Republicans blocked a similar percentage of Clinton's nominations.

ONLY under McConnell did the Senate ever go against the US Constitution and refuse to "advise" on the nomination.