I'm Stunned USA Today Published This Op-Ed From a Dem About Trump's State...
This Always Happens With These Anti-ICE Stories in the Media
This State's Lawmakers Are Pushing a Bill That Would Ban Facial Recognition Technology
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Announces Scouting America Reforms
What Will Stop the Iranian Regime's Oppression and Murder of Its People?
The Media Once Scolded Us for Using a Certain Label They Now Love
Florida Airport Becomes the First Nationwide to Ban Passengers From Wearing Pajamas
JD Vance Says There Is ‘No Chance’ of Prolonged War as US Warships...
Here's How Mamdani's Snow Shoveling Program is Going
What the World Needs Now
Scam Center Strike Force Freezes Over $580 Million Stolen in Crypto Investment Frauds
MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson Dodges Question of Whether Illegal Immigrants Are...
DHS Arrests Ukrainian National Who Attempted to Bomb a Police Chief
U.S. Seeks Forfeiture of Seized Oil Tanker and 1.8 Million Barrels of Oil
Illinois Pair Convicted in $5 Million Multistate Pyramid Scheme Case
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