Republicans refused to grant President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a hearing last year after Justice Antonin Scalia suddenly died. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the move was necessary to check Obama’s power and give the American people a chance to decide in the election. Democrats say Republicans failed their constitutional duty and effectively stole the seat. Now Republicans are facing a tough battle for their own nominee. What do you think?
PERSPECTIVES
Some people say this Supreme Court seat was not Trump’s to decide. The Republicans failed its constitutional duty to consider Obama’s nominee because they wanted the power for themselves. No one disputed Merrick Garland’s qualifications — he’s a dedicated civil servant who would be a moderate Supreme Court Justice.
The Republicans effectively have attempted to steal this Supreme Court seat. If this effort succeeds — as has appeared likely ever since Trump’s surprise election — it will create a fundamental imbalance in the third branch of our federal government, the independence and integrity of which is vital to our constitutional system. An essential role of the federal judiciary is to check unlawful actions of the political branches–Congress and the president. When political actors conspire to distort the makeup of the court, as they did in denying President Obama his basic constitutional role, we the people must demand that the balance be restored.
The only appropriate way to fix this is by putting Garland on the court. This unprecedented and malicious break from procedure must be addressed.
The confirmation of Garland to the court would provide perfect justice. This may not be quite so far-fetched as it might seem initially. President Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make more than one Supreme Court appointment. As Trump is not nominating Garland this time, the Senate should keep the current vacancy open until a second seat becomes vacant. It should then confirm Garland, followed by consideration of the Trump choice. The only appropriate alternative — given the constitutional stakes — would be to maintain an eight-person or fewer court for four years.
If Democrats do not take a stand here, they will be steamrolled by Republicans as the tradition and norms that underpin American democracy fall apart.
But this Supreme Court vacancy is different. It exists only as the result of the wrongful denial of the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. It is a breakdown of the very functioning of our democracy and a slap in the face to constitutional norms. It is an attempted theft that, if permitted, would bring longstanding consequences. Its end was to prevent the court from having a majority of justices appointed by Democratic presidents for the first time since 1969. That’s almost half a century with a court majority appointed by Republican presidents, a striking imbalance that does not reflect the presidential vote: Since 1961, Democratic and Republican presidents have served equal numbers of years.
Republicans say the Obama administration was circumventing Congress to get a liberal agenda through. Waiting for a new president was the only way to return power and choice to the American people. By politicizing this issue, the American people will decide whether they want a conservative or liberal judge on the court. The people have decided.
“This president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda,” [Chuck] Grassley said. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.” By using his power as chairman to block a vote in committee, Grassley can box out Reid or other Democrats from trying to call up a nomination on the Senate floor, as Reid threatened to do when Loretta Lynch was a nominee to be attorney general. And McConnell can stop Obama from recess appointments by scheduling pro forma sessions of the Senate.
If Gorsuch was an honorable man, he would never accept a nomination for a stolen seat.
— Forever44 (@theonlyadult) February 1, 2017
Yes, a STOLEN seat. Democrats: don’t be complicit in GOP thievery.
Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat https://t.co/SkbZbL3Mgr
— HawaiiDelilah (@HawaiiDelilah) February 1, 2017
The battle over what many see as a stolen seat is about not just one vacancy but potentially 2, 3, or 4. That’s why stakes are so massive.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) February 1, 2017
To suggest Gorsuch is a stolen seat ignores majority losses in the Senate under Obama which were decided by elections.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) February 1, 2017
Remember that fun antagonistic quote from George Clooney in 2013? “If you don’t like this, go win an election”
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) February 1, 2017
“Nominee for a Stolen Seat”
Hey Trumpers, I got these really cheap! Feel free to share today! pic.twitter.com/ejzCgdHO6d
— Pink Lady 4 Trump (@pink_lady56) February 1, 2017
The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Digital, Inc. property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt or on Facebook, we’d love to hear what you have to say.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
