On March 16, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the 113th Supreme Court Justice. Hailing from Illinois and having 18 years of Federal Judicial Experience, Garland has been described as a “moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases.” During the time of the Supreme Court Justice conference, much attention was given to the man who had a possibility of being the next justice, and much thought was given to whether or not the Senate would approve the new justice with Obama only having eight months left in his final term or wait until the next president is elected and let the next President decide. Any of the remaining candidates in this election, with such controversial and differing beliefs and policies, are in a position to change the course of the country if elected President, and either one of them has the chance to elect the next Supreme Court justice.
The President has every right to nominate an individual for the vacant Supreme Court seat and the Senate has every right to hold off hearings until they choose to. The official Supreme Court website states that “The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.” There is nothing that states either side is required to do so in any set time frame, leading to the issue we have today. The vendetta is that both the President and the Senate are within their constitutional rights regarding their decisions about the nomination, but constitutional law does not take into account party politics.
Here is what’s being said:
The constitutional standing (the law of the land) is in Article I, Section 5 stating that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” That power includes the rules for considering judicial nominations, as well as all other Senate business. Thus, so long as the Senate has established rules that allow it to refuse to vote on a nominee, it can do so – just as it can refuse to vote on bills, treaties, or any other business that comes before it.”
The Republicans stand for the idea that there is no constitutional duty for the Senate to vote on this nomination. According to Associate Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School and former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia William Kelley, “Some commentators claim that the Constitution somehow imposes a duty upon the Senate to act on the president’s nomination. And while there certainly has been a practice of the Senate acting on Supreme Court nominees, the claim that the Constitution somehow requires a hearing or vote is simply wrong.” He continues, “The practice has been from day one that the president nominates officers (again including Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges) and the Senate then considers the nomination, however, it sees fit.” House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also supports waiting until the new election, stating; “The American people are in the middle of choosing who the next president is going to be…That next president ought to have this appointment.”
The Democrats, on the other hand, are supporting the constitutional right of the President to appoint the next Supreme Court justice before the end of his term. The President discussed the importance of the Senate to do its job, stating that “he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee…..” The Democrats are also currently planning a strategy to get the Senate to vote on Garland’s nomination, stating “the approach, which is being implemented in part by a well-organized group led by former aides to President Obama, involves targeting vulnerable GOP Senate incumbents for defeat by portraying them as unwilling to fulfill the basic duties of their office. The idea is to so threaten the Republicans’ Senate majority that party leaders will reconsider blocking hearings on Garland’s nomination.”
It is within the members of Senate’s constitutional rights to wait until after the November election to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. To ensure that such confusion and division never happens again, there should be a law created stating that there will be no appointment or voting on a Supreme Court Justice nominee during the last year of a president’s final term. This will allow for the politics surrounding the nomination policy to be clear and absolve the possibility of any partisan picking of Supreme Court nominees during the last year of a president’s term. This will allow the next President to make a major decision on the direction of the country- and let us let him or her guide the country in the right direction.
Take Action: Learn more about the Supreme Court here.
