This is a great idea.
From the Huffington Post:
President Barack Obama is in the last year of his second term, Republican senators argue, so he should no longer have a say in something so important as who sits on the Supreme Court. Let’s wait for the voters to weigh in this fall, they say.
But Obama isn’t the only elected official in the last year of his term who has a key role in choosing the next justice, whose party may or may not hold onto his power post, and who generally makes consequential decisions.
The GOP logic seems to be that voters may have changed their minds about what sorts of leaders they want over the past three years, so rather than let Obama function for his full four-year term, the Senate should stall him. Beyond the Supreme Court vacancy, Republicans have also refused to hold hearings on Obama’s budget, and one senator had himself recorded throwing Obama’s final proposal to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison base into the trash.
If after a mere three years, however, Obama has lost his mandate, what about those other elected officials who haven’t gone before the voters in five years?
There are 34 senators serving the final years of their six-year terms. Ten of them are Democrats, and 24 are Republicans, including at least seven facing difficult re-election fights. One of those going before the voters this fall is Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which in theory holds hearings on Supreme Court nominees.
The logic that says a president shouldn’t be allowed to make a consequential appointment in his final year would seem to indicate those “lame duck” senators shouldn’t be allowed to cast consequential votes. One might even suggest that argument is stronger against senators, who are one among one hundred, than against the singular president.
This is a great idea.
That’s one way to highlight how ludicrous the Repub argument is. Another way is to point out that the Constitution REQUIRES the President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not say that the President can “just let it go, if he is serving his final year”.
That's one way to highlight how ludicrous the Repub argument is. Another way is to point out that the Constitution REQUIRES the President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not say that the President can "just let it go, if he is serving his final year".No, but McConnell has threatened to keep the Senate from voting on anybody Obama might nominate because HE thinks a lame duck president should not nominate anyone (certainly not one who's a Democrat, anyway), despite the Constitution not saying it, and he has the power to prevent a nomination from coming up for a Senate vote. So Obama can fulfill his Constitutional requirement to nominate someone but McConnell can prevent any nomination fom being voted on at least until after the election. The Constitution doesn't say there is a deadline on a Senate vote, so McConnell can drag his feet until the election is over. Of course, he's doing this with the expectation that the next president will be a Republican. Lois
From Article II Section 2 of the Constitution:
“…he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court…”
That sounds to me like the President is REQUIRED to nominate and appoint, while the Senate is REQUIRED to provide advice and, at least, eventual consent to someone that the President nominates.
McConnell, if advising the President NOT to nominate someone, is advising the President to breach the Constitution. By pre-emptively declaring that the Senate will not even consider anyone that the President nominates, McConnell is declaring that the Senate will not perform their Constitutional role.
The Repubs hold the Constitution in highest regards, until it doesn’t fit their partisan designs. Then it might as well be toilet tissue.