I haven’t seen this mentioned so I’ll throw it into the diary list. A paper written by University of Illinois law professors posits that by not fulfilling their constitutional duty of ‘advice and consent’, the Senate is explicitly delegating the sitting presidents power to his successor, which they do not have the power to do.
Here’s the link to a description of the paper. The summary is worth reading. Here’s a few key paragraphs.
By announcing in advance that they will break from this precedent, Senate Republicans are explicitly seeking to delegate the current president's Supreme Court appointment powers to an unknown successor, which is constitutionally tenuous ground, Kar and Mazzone write.
"Senate Republicans have publicly explained that their aim is not to reject any particular Obama nominee, such as Merrick Garland, but rather to prevent full senatorial consideration of any and all nominees put forth by President Obama," Kar said. "These senators believe that the president's successor, rather than President Obama himself, should be given this appointment power."
And that's the crux of the problem: An outright refusal on the part of some senators to consider any nominee from President Obama is an attempt to delegate an elected president's Supreme Court appointment power.
Read more at: phys.org/...