Since President Obama put forward his nominee for the Supreme Court, a lot of rhetoric has been thrown around about the Senate's "constitutional duty".
Ignoring for a minute the irony that progressives who routinely mock constitutional principles suddenly care about the document, does the Senate have
a constitutional duty to act on the president's nominee?
The text provides no specific criteria for which the Senate is allowed to withhold consent. It doesn't say the Senate "must hold a vote on the
nominee". Insinuating there is a specific manner in which this MUST happen is absolutely false. There isn't.
Some may argue that it is politically advantageous to hold hearings and at least consider the President's nominee. These arguments are not
without merit. That being said, there is a large gap between what is wise and what is obligatory. The Senate can decide for itself how
it wants to approach the process.