You Can’t Out-MAGA Donald Trump
Democrats and the Stench of Desperation
Everyone's in on It
Intersectionality and Abandoned Leadership Is Killing the Democrats
Accountability, the New Political Buzzword
Stop the Harmful Time-Changing Ritual
Kitchen-Table Politics: Why Prescription Drug Costs Could Decide the Midterms
Man Arrested for Allegedly Stealing Veteran’s Identity and Using VA Health Care for...
Seventh U.S. Service Member Killed in Operation Epic Fury
NYPD Investigates Suspicious Device in Manhattan Vehicle After Apparent Terror Plot
NYPD Confirms Real IED Thrown at Protest Crowd
Federal Judge Voids Voice of America Layoffs
Trump Says He Won't Sign Any New Legislation Until the SAVE Act Is...
Former Carlyle Police Chief Accused of Spending Taxpayer Monday on WNBA Tickets, Jewelry
Chicago-Area Convenience Store Owner Sentenced to 4 Years in WIC Fraud Scheme
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.
It’s The Principle, Not The Individual

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