U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died recently, leaving a vacancy on the highest court in the country.
The judges sitting on the nine-member court serve lifetime appointments, unless they resign, and the Constitution states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court,” and other federal officers.
Desjarlais
Murfreesboro’s voice in the U.S. House of Representatives, Scott Desjarlais said a few days after Scalia’s passing that “we must not allow the Supreme Court to become merely another instrument to implement President Obama’s leftist political agenda. As such, I agree with Sen. McConnell (R-KY) that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice and the vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
The new president will not be in office until January 2017, so some Americans say the Supreme Court seat should not remain vacant for such a long period of time. Also, by his own acknowledgement, Rep. Desjarlais has no more of a say in the new judge’s appointment than any other citizen, since only the U.S. Senate votes to confirm the nomination, and not the House; though his views coincide with those of many in the Republican party.
He took the time to explain his calls for delay to the Murfreesboro Pulse:
Murfreesboro Pulse: What is your reasoning that the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice should be put on hold for 11 months? Some are calling that “obstructionist.”
Desjarlais: Our Constitution is clear that the Senate provides “advice and consent” for all Supreme Court nominees. Let us not forget that both Sen. Schumer and then-Sen. Obama sought to obstruct the nomination of Supreme Court Justices during the Bush administration. In fact, Sen. Schumer stated that the Senate should “reverse the presumption of confirmation” and Obama vigorously filibustered the nomination of Justice Alito. I recognize the president has a constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. However, that privilege is counterbalanced by the Senate having an equally strong constitutional right to set the timeline for that confirmation process. I find it interesting that those who now accuse the Republican-controlled Senate of being obstructionists had absolutely nothing to say when Senate Majority Reid kept a vast majority of House-passed legislation from ever receiving a vote on the Senate floor.
How do you reconcile that opinion with the Constitution’s setting forth the procedure of the president nominating judges of the Supreme Court, and their confirmation being made after receiving the advice and consent of the Senate.
The only procedure set forth in the Constitution is that the president nominates and the Senate provides “advice and consent.” There is no timeline and as such I feel strongly that the American people should have a say in who will replace Justice Scalia. . . . I just don’t see President Obama having the votes to confirm anyone right now.
So waiting until next year is appropriate “advice” from the Senate?
I think that it is. We are about to have a monumental election that will decide the direction of our country for at least the next four years.
Others are calling those senators who want to wait until after a new president is in office to consider a new justice “activist legislators” trying to block the Constitutional process and shift the balance of power away from the executive and judicial branches of our government. What are your views on that?
Congress is a co-equal branch of the government. I think sometimes folks forget that. The constitutional process clearly states the president may nominate, but it is up to the Senate to provide “advice and consent.” That isn’t being an activist, that is exercising a Constitutional right and responsibility. If we go back to the Bush administration, several prominent Democrats embraced that exact approach. If the founding fathers wanted the president to have the authority to nominate whoever they choose, whenever they choose, they wouldn’t have added in the “advice and consent” requirement of the Senate. While President Obama won re-election in 2012, the American people elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014. Therefore the Senate has just as much of a mandate as the president to proceed as they think best as long as it is within our constitutional framework, and in this case it is.
~~
To contact your U.S. Representative and let him know about the issues that matter to you, visit desjarlais.house.gov or facebook.com/ScottDesJarlaisTN04.
