Friday, January 13, 2017

The President / The Senate / Supreme Court Nominees

In May of 2016, President Barak Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Since that time, the Senate has refused to vote on or to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination.
There have been claims:
“The President should be able to name anyone that he wants to the court.”
“Congress has failed to act and thereby lost any say in the matter.”
“Congress is not fulfilling their Constitutional duties.”

The Appointment Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court."

In reference to the President, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, states that before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Senators take an oath as follows: 
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God”.

If the President is going to live up to the preserve, protect, and defend part of the oath, then he/she is obligated to name judges that are strict constitutionalists and not those that view the Constitution as a living document that the courts can change at will.
None of Obama’s three nominees met this requirement.  Congress, knowing that Obama would never nominate a pro-constitution judge did, as a practical matter, approve the first two nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Senate understood that the appointment of Judge Garland would have begun the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and held out hope (a very slim hope at the time) that Mrs. Clinton would not become the President and finish the destruction of the constitutional United States!
Is the opinion of this writer that the Senate, by not acting on Garland’s nomination, fulfilled their constitutional duties thereby saving the United Sates as we know it!

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog


Franklkyn said...

I AGREE 100%!

If the Progressives had maintained control, we would have been referring to each other as comrade. They have already greatly restricted free speech and freedom of religion thereby undermining the 1st Amendment. And they all but destroyed the 10th Amendment.

I pray that the new administration will do all it can to reverse this damage and restore the Constitution!

JudgeN said...

The recent court ruling of the POTUS’ authority to block foreign entry for security reasons confirms the argument.

Far too many Federal Judges are making political rather than law based decisions.

MimiFla said...

Judge Garland is said to be a well qualified nominee for the Supreme Court.

However, a close look at his record indicates that he is a strong opponent of both the 2nd Amendment and Sates Rights.