On March 16, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland as his choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that the Senate would not hold hearings or a vote on Justice Garland. Senator McConnell stated that the next Supreme Court justice should be nominated by the next President in 2017. Senate Republicans can block the any hearings or votes on the current nominee due to their majority in the Senate. Senate Democrats argue that the Constitution specifies that the Senate should at least hold a vote on any Justices nominated by a sitting President.
@4PG5NPS3yrs3Y
Garland should be given the position as "temporary" and when the new president takes office he/she can decide if that is who they want for the position.
@4NVZPLL3yrs3Y
No. Why is this an issue? The Constitution is very clear on the procedure!
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2
He (The President of The United States) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
There's no room for argument!
@5GZGTLZ3yrs3Y
Yes, because the current nominee appears to be more agreeable than others that will likely be offered if the Democrats win the election.
@4PMDPSC3yrs3Y
Our courts have a 25% success rate. Just end this system and start over from scratch.
@4PLFG4F3yrs3Y
I hate the partisanship that has taken over Washington. It doesn't matter if the Republicans absolutely would have loved the Obama nominee coming they're going to object no matter what. Everyday all day long and all night long and all the cable news channels it's just one party bad-mouthing the other. That's why I choose to be a registered nonpartisan. I disrespect both parties
@4PH4K4W3yrs3Y
They should approve or disprove nominees based on their merit, lack of bias, and commitment to the Constitution with consideration for the fact that Obama might be more conservative than the next president.
@4PDGD9T3yrs3Y
People are tired of all the grandstanding by the government. This should not be allowed, stop voting parties and usurping funds from the people when the only thing that needs to be done is to decide if the incoming nominee is appropriate for the job.
@4PB4YN23yrs3Y
The Senate can follow their own rules
@dominoreturns3yrs3Y
No, an outgoing President (last year in office) should never be allowed to make a judicial nominee.
@4P9KMNF3yrs3Y
No leftist should ever be allowed on the Court again.
@4P9DF3C3yrs3Y
No, the Constitution says the Senate has a voice in the nomination of the candidate too.
@4P8KPBQ3yrs3Y
Justices should be voted in by the public, not a leader affiliated with a bias.
@4P4VYVY3yrs3Y
They should have hearings and confirm him if HRC wins and if she loses leave it up to Ted Cruz to pick the next justice.
@4NYSNFZ3yrs3Y
No, the president should take the advice of Senate but in the long run, it is his decision. The current president, not the future president.
@4NYH3DF3yrs3Y
Neither the President nor the Senate should be participating in a show of power. Logic should reign and consideration should be given for what kind of precedent is being set. A decent man, with good credentials and ability to serve, is being used a hockey puck in this power play. Each should agree to step back into their corners and end this standoff of showmanship.
@4NWTFJW3yrs3Y
No Justices, Local, State, Federa l of SCOUS should be nominated or elected. They should be hired as civil servants, so they can be fired or praised depending on the job they do. This should NOT be a political post!
@5K9MNPW3yrs3Y
No one gives a damn about democrats
@5G8Q9LX3yrs3Y
It's too late now, but the excuses put forth by the Senate at the time were ridiculous - just do your damn job! This is the problem when the "election season" becomes 24 months.
@5B7HSMD3yrs3Y
Yes, Merrick Garland is a great compromise for both parties and the current Presidential candidates are unfit to choose a new nominee.
@57WMX2W3yrs3Y
I don't like Obama and I do lean toward the conservative side. However, the constitution is clear and if it does require the senate to do something, I believe the senate should. Our founding fathers were pretty smart guys. I wish I could say the same for our current politicians.
@4PY34TJ3yrs3Y
This situation should never exist. As soon as this weakness of the Supreme Court system was found, laws or a system for correction should have been passed to address this and other reasons why a vacancy might open up. It should not be that hard to pre-select a judge to fill in the vacancy or require the least senior judge to step down temporarily until the selection process can be completed. A chain of command type of structure so the next judge is already in the pipeline so to speak.
@4PT3PBZ3yrs3Y
The Senate does not have to hold a hearing. Liberals say the Senate can't wait until the next presidency and has to at least hold a hearing, but back in 2007, left wing senator Charles Schumer and the democratic senate stalled George W. Bush's nominee for over 16 months. Why shouldn't this Senate be able to wait a mere 8 months? Plus Merrick Garland is too liberal for me, the deal is with Garland is that he's nearly moderate besides the fact he's totally against gun rights. If he gets inducted to The Supreme Court, you can kiss your gun rights goodbye. But, if Hillary… Read more
@4PG2S443yrs3Y
Yes, and we should look into creating another way to perform checks and balances (a sort of federal referee) to step in when any of the federal branches play games with the country as they have been for years. There is no reason why educated, fully-grown, "respectable" men and women should be acting the way they have when there is so much at stake.
@4P3TFPH3yrs3Y
They should not be appointed for life. Should be appointed for a limited term. Then could be reappointed IF they can pass physical and mental examinations.
@4NWB2Q73yrs3Y
Hold hearings, reviews, and do research on the justice now but don't make a vote until the next president is elected. Use the Biden rule.
@4NQCJ373yrs3Y
Garland prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. That should disqualify him, he is bought and paid for.
@4PGLYD63yrs3Y
they should have a set term limit as well. our government was not made to be a paid forever job. they are elected they should not even be paid
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
