I want to say this before going forward with this article; any attorney/judge who would accept President Obama’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court and ascend to the bench without Senate approval would not be worth the post.
Now that I said that, Barack Obama has been skirting the rules of the Constitution for the last 7.5 years with no accountability by either party. He’s angered many Americans in the process, but he doesn’t care about that.
Now there is a vacancy on the court due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. A vacancy Obama wants to fill before he leaves office ensuring the court is tipped with a liberal slant. Republican senators are saying they won’t budge and have refused to confirm Obama’s nominee.
What I read the other day shocked me. A journalist from a major newspaper wrote an op-ed piece telling Obama to go ahead with the appointment! Can you believe that?
From The Washington Post:
On Nov. 12, 1975, while I was serving as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice William O. Douglas resigned. On Nov. 28, President Gerald R. Ford nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacant seat. Nineteen days after receiving the nomination, the Senate voted 98 to 0 to confirm the president’s choice. Two days later, I had the pleasure of seeing Ford present Stevens to the court for his swearing-in. The business of the court continued unabated. There were no 4-to-4 decisions that term.
Today, the system seems to be broken. Both parties are at fault, seemingly locked in a death spiral to outdo the other in outrageous behavior. Now, the Senate has simply refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, dozens of nominations to federal judgeships and executive offices are pending before the Senate, many for more than a year. Our system prides itself on its checks and balances, but there seems to be no balance to the Senate’s refusal to perform its constitutional duty.
The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?
By mutilating the sentence found in the Constitution, this journalist who wrote the article can claim a separate power of the president (which the man known as Obama ain’t – he’s a usurper!) to appoint his nominee, as if it is not predicated on any other action.
But, the president can appoint his nominee “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” not as a stand alone action. Without the advice and consent of the Senate, not even an eligible man serving in that office can appoint a judge.
H/T – Washington Post
Will Obama take this advice and choose a justice to replace Scalia? Will the Senate allow that to happen? Share your opinion (below) on what you thought of this arrogant piece.