Justice Merrick Garland

[_cinepro]

I can't find the text in the Constitution that requires the Senate to do anything beyond "as they think proper" with the President nomination.....

so, please help me out with this "clear and unambiguous" text you speak of

The "as they think proper" doesn't apply to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices (only "inferior officers".)

The current argument of the Senate Republicans is based around an idea that the nomination should delayed until the next President takes office. As you have pointed out, there is no such provision in the Constitution. The President (who at this time is Obama) is given the task of appointing Supreme Court Justices. Now that Obama has done so, the Senate can give him their "advice" and "consent". But if they object not based on the quality of the nomination but on ideas about a balance in the court, an upcoming election or some other political spin (none of which are found in the Constitution) then they are contradicting the Constitution.

If you think this is the right thing to do according to the procedures set out in the Constitution (and you would fully support the Democrats doing this to a Republican president), then good for you. And if you think it is okay to do this because the balance of the Supreme Court is more important than the Constitutional procedure, then so be it.

All I can say (and I hate to say it as a conservative), but if this is the game Senate Republicans play then I hope Clinton wins, gets a Senate majority, and appoints an extremely young, healthy judge that is to the left of Bernie Sanders. And for the next 50 years, every time Republicans see her sitting up there and voting for the most left positions on cases, they remember that one time Obama had nominated a really good moderate candidate and they blew it.

[_canpakes]

Subs, what would be the reason why the Senate would not or should not consider Merrick for appointment?

[_Res Ipsa]

I think the basis of the argument is that the Senate never has an obligation to give its consent to any candidate. Taken to it's logical extreme, no judge would ever be confirmed when control of the Senate and the Presidency were held by different political parties. When they were held by the same parties, judges and justices of extreme ideology would then be rushed through approval. If anyone thinks this is what the framers said or intended (or that it would be a good way to run a government), please proceed.

[_EAllusion]

The framers of the Constitution who wrote the section in question did not anticipate the rise of political parties that would vote in unison for strategic reasons. That's why the 12th amendment became necessary. The idealized version of the language was that each individual member of the Senate would vote on a nomination by attempting to fairly evaluate qualifications. Because the Constitution didn't anticipate parliamentary bloc voting (or lack of it) on judicial appointments, it didn't do anything to explicitly address it.

This does not mean the the Constitution requires the Senate to give an up or down vote. That's far from clear and I don't think it does. We can strenuously object to Republican obstructionism - which I do in this case - while simultaneously believing they have the power to do it.

[_cinepro]

I think the basis of the argument is that the Senate never has an obligation to give its consent to any candidate. Taken to it's logical extreme, no judge would ever be confirmed when control of the Senate and the Presidency were held by different political parties. When they were held by the same parties, judges and justices of extreme ideology would then be rushed through approval. If anyone thinks this is what the framers said or intended (or that it would be a good way to run a government), please proceed.

That does seem to be the logical outcome of the current situation.

[_EAllusion]

That does seem to be the logical outcome of the current situation.

That's the problem with the current situation. But it is worth noting that we've had decades upon decades upon decades of government where this hasn't happened. Judicial appointments have not resulted in party-line voting because it has been a political virtue to compromise on appointments expecting the same in return when the shoe is on the other foot and because jurisprudential philosophy and manner is distinguishable from partisan affiliation.

What makes this so bad is that Republicans are taking a big step in blowing that up. And given the way their presidential nomination process is cratering, they're doing so for what looks like a pretty serious gamble on winning an election.

[_Kevin Graham]

Maybe we should let the Supreme Court take up this matter.

Wait....

[_Brackite]

AND
this all explains why you see no problem with:
D = Obama: Who Cares if I Filibustered Alito, Republicans Have to Vote on My the Supreme Court Nominee

And it was wrong back then when Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, just like it is wrong now that Senate Republicans are refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Justice Garland.
Hopefully, Senate Republicans will change their minds before election day.

[_MeDotOrg]

Hopefully, Senate Republicans will change their minds before election day.

It will be very interesting to see what happens if Clinton appears to be a shoo-in this fall. I guarantee you a Clinton nominee will be to the left of Merrick Garland. After all, to the victor belongs the spoils, or in the Republican's words, the people have spoken. So if Clinton is ahead in the fall, do you think some Republicans will get cold feet and push for Garland's confirmation? Better the devil you know than the one you don't...

[_subgenius]

AND
this all explains why you see no problem with:
D = Obama: Who Cares if I Filibustered Alito, Republicans Have to Vote on My the Supreme Court Nominee

And it was wrong back then when Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, just like it is wrong now that Senate Republicans are refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Justice Garland.
Hopefully, Senate Republicans will change their minds before election day.

How is it wrong?