Accessories to Theft?

On the very day (13 February, 2016) that Justice Scalia died, Mitch McConnell decreed that the Senate would not consider any Supreme Court nominee proposed by President Obama.

There was still almost an entire year left of the President's term in office. President Obama named a moderate often praised by key Republicans -- Justice Merrick Garland -- in March. Justice Garland received no consideration and Senate Republicans refused to even meet with him.

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed.
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."
McConnell made it clear he was denying Obama's right to appoint a justice -- and abdigating the Senate's Constitutional responsibility -- precisely so the next president could fill the opening. This was a theft from the president. Democrats wrung their hands but seemed powerless to do anything.

Now we have a Republican president and a Republican Senate, frothing at the mouth to fill Scalia's seat with an extreme conservative. Democrats still have the power to filibuster SCOTUS appointments and must do so, vowing that only Merrick Garland will be considered. If they must filibuster five, ten or twenty nominees, that is how they avoid becoming accessories to a theft. We cannot allow this theft to establish a future precedent.

But beyond this, Senate Democrats -- or citizens through the ACLU -- should petition the Court to issue a stay (suspension) of consideration of any nominee until Merrick Garland's nomination has received the full consideration from the Senate.

It is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on obstruction and defiance of the U.S. Constitution.


Post a Comment

I'm interested in your comments.