|President Obama as he announces his nomination for |
the Supreme Court
That is why it is such a big deal when cases reach the United States Supreme Court. In other words, whatever the Supreme Court says, goes.
In the Constitution is where we find the "Appointment Clause". Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, states , "the Appointments Clause, empowers the President of the United States to appoint certain public officials with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate."
One of those public official appointments is to the Supreme Court. In order for the now vacant Supreme Court Justice seat to be filled, President Obama, needs the Senate to fulfill its duty of "consent". He has already fulfilled his duty by nominating Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
However, the Senate has yet to hold a hearing on President Obama's, nomination, yet alone vote on it. And the kicker is, they pretty much aren't afraid to let it be known that they do not plan on voting on the nomination any time soon.
Senate members that oppose holding a meeting on President Obama's nomination argue that the appointment should be held off until after the next President is elected, in order to give the people a voice in the nomination. They argue that because whomever is appointed as the next Chief Justice will serve until their death or until they voluntarily retire, the appointment should be made by our next President and not by a President that will be leaving office at the end of the year.
What do you think? Should the Senate at least hold a meeting on President Obama's nomination? Should it matter that he is leaving office this year? Do you think a President, having held office for almost 8 years, would be better equipped to nominate a Justice, as opposed to a new President? Do you think the new President, having been elected by the people of 2016, will be a better voice for the people in its nomination for the vacant Justice seat?
Leave a comment below!