Conservatives for Property Rights Urge White House Support for Patent Reform
Where's the Left's Outrage Over This Florida Shooting?
From Madison to Minneapolis: One Leftist's Mission to Stop ICE
Two Wisconsin Hospitals Halted 'Gender-Affirming Care' for Minors, but the Fight Isn't Ove...
Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Has Died at 68
Here's the Insane Reason a U.K. Asylum Seeker Was Spared Jail Despite Sex...
Trump to Iran: Help Is on the Way
Trump’s Leverage Doctrine
Stop Pretending That Colleges Are Nonprofit Institutions
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Whether States Can Ban Men From Women’s...
Federal Reserve Chairman ‘Ignored’ DOJ, Pirro Says, Necessitating Criminal Probe
Iran Death Toll Tops 12,000 As Security Forces Begin to Slaughter Non-Protesting Civilians
If Bill Clinton Thought He Could Just Not Show Up for His House...
The December Inflation Report Is Here, and It's Good News
The GOP Is Restoring the American Dream of Homeownership
OPINION

It’s The Principle, Not The Individual

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear.

The president may nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but the power to grant, or withhold, consent rests exclusively with the Senate.

Advertisement

Nowhere does it say the Senate must hold hearings or votes. In fact, senators and appointees of both parties have said this for years, regardless of who was in charge.

In 2005, Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote."

Three years prior, in 2002, former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Abner Mikva — a Carter appointee — said that "the Senate should not act on any Supreme Court vacancies that might occur until after the next presidential election."

Preceding Judge Mikva's comments, Vice President Joe Biden, the former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, made a similar argument in 1992 when he said, "Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process."

Senator Reid, Judge Mikva, and Vice President Biden were right then. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and my Republican colleagues are right now.

Despite Democrats previously making these exact same points, we are hearing them now tell us to do our job.

Advertisement

I respectfully say we are doing our job.

The balance of our nation's highest court is in jeopardy, and we must ensure this balance remains as a check against efforts by the government to bypass the will of the people. This is about the principle, not the individual.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe we must allow the American people to have a voice in this process. The upcoming presidential election will not only determine the direction of our country, but also serve as a referendum on the presidency, Congress, and now the Supreme Court.

In fact, not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election-year to a vacancy arising in that year. And, not since 1888 was someone both nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.

The responsible course of action is to avoid the political theater and allow the American people to decide.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement