subgenius wrote:The "reason" is irrelevant and is not mentioned in nor required by the Constitution.
Saying legislature can do something is different than saying they should do it. You are arguing they both can and should do it, but refuse to justify the later. Given that there are all manner of things the federal government does that they have the Constitutional authority to do that you vociferously disagree with, can we assume that simply pointing out it is Constitutional should be enough to satisfy you?
subgenius wrote:The "reason" is irrelevant and is not mentioned in nor required by the Constitution.
This is the only response that you realize that you can give, because any attempt at answering the question would reveal that a denial of hearings is for capricious and childish reasons, and not in keeping with the behavior of mature individuals who took their responsibility seriously.
This is not the hill that you want to die on today.
Senator Mark Kirk has become the first GOP Senator to call for a vote on Justice Garland. Link The latest FOX News Poll has Hillary up by 11 percentage points over Trump. Link The Senate Republicans need to have a confirmation hearing on Justice Garland. Link
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter