So, President Obama Gets Only Three Years?
Thank you, Merrick Garland. Your stalled appointment to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama gives me another outrage to write about besides Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
This grateful pundit salutes you, although unfortunately the stubborn refusal of Republican leaders to grant you a proper hearing -- and up-or-down confirmation vote -- in the Senate comes straight out of the Trump school of single-finger social graces.
Judge Garland, 63, who grew up in the Chicago area and serves on the District of Columbia Circuit of the U. S. Court of Appeals, comes highly recommended by experts from both parties, including three of the 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah about Garland in 1995, after President Bill Clinton nominated Garland for his current seat. "In fact, I would place him at the top of the list."
But now that President Obama has put Garland on the top of his list to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Garland's name joins dozens of other judicial and nonjudicial appointees stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The reasons for the stall are quite partisan. Republicans are horrified by the idea of a liberal Obama appointee replacing Scalia, who anchored the high court's conservative wing for three decades. As a result, they're giving Garland what I call "The Godfather" brush-off: It's business, your honor. Political business. Don't take it personally.
But rather than admit that out loud, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared about an hour after Scalia's death was announced that Senate Republicans would not consider a replacement until after the next president is in office -- next year.
Is that in the Constitution? No. It is in McConnell's head. The Constitution says the president is supposed to appoint and the Senate is supposed to advise and consent --vote up or down -- on the nominee.
But the Constitution does not put a time limit on the process or even number how many justices sit on the court. The Framers of the Constitution apparently expected reasonable people to reason together in settling such technical issues. If so, the Framers did not anticipate leadership as unreasonable as the current crop.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," said McConnell about an hour after Scalia's death as confirmed. Oh? So the voice of the people who elected Obama twice to a job that does not expire until early next year is no longer good enough? Since when does the voice of the people have an early expiration date?
...continued
(c) 2016 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
