Supreme Court Pros And Cons

694 Words3 Pages
In this election year a Supreme Court position opened up following the unfortunate death of justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama, has the ability to nominate a replacement as this is one of his presidential powers. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, as Antonin Scalia’s replacement. After the nomination, Merrick Garland can take the position if the senate approve of the nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a hearing that would be held to nominate the nominee. McConnell claimed that “the people should have a say" in the selection by electing a new president to reflect their views. Mitch McConnell crossed the line with this decision by impeding on the powers of the president, compromising the powers of the supreme court’s, and obstructing the process for political reasons.…show more content…
With that being said, Merrick Garland is ignoring the representation of the people who voted for Obama during the final year in office. He says “the people should decide” and they did through the president they elected. Mitch McConnell referred to congress’s ability to check the president’s power by withholding consent. Mitch McConnell plans to withhold consent until next election, but what stopping him from obstructing the process for as long as he wants? There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional restrictions on how long congress can withhold. If there isn’t a limit on how long the senate could withhold consent, then it seems that congress has way too much power over supreme court justice appointments and needs to be checked. I believe that withholding consent is achieved through a vote that rejects the nominee that the president presents to congress. Refusing to vote on the nomination just seems like are ignoring the issue for party

More about Supreme Court Pros And Cons

Open Document