1. Explain whether you believe the blocked nomination of President Obama nominee Merrick Garland by the Senate was a politically correct and/or good decision.
The events that unfolded following the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama are not to be desired. The decision to uphold the nomination was at the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee that is responsible for the vetting of Supreme Court Justice nominees. Unfortunately, the Republican legislators who form the majority of the committee decided not to debate the nomination until after the upcoming general election was over (Ulrich, 2016). Led by the outspoken Senate republican Leader of Majority – Mitch McConnell, they argued that American citizens should be allowed a say in the Supreme Court matters by voting for their preferred president. The events were not politically correct nor was it a good decision.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It was not fair for the Republican legislators to block the appointment of and deny the American public a Supreme Court Justice for almost 300 days. Failure to debate the issue for such a long time led to the expiry of Garland’s nomination on 31 st of January 2017. The Republican-led senate committee strongly believed they would win the upcoming 2016 general elections. With a republican president in power, they knew he/she would nominate a republican-affiliated justice to the Supreme Court (Demirjian, 2016). By blocking the nomination of Garland, they were able to deny the Democratic appointees a majority vote in the Supreme Court. The last time they enjoyed such luxury was in 1970 following the confirmation of Harry Blackmun.
The Senate erred by openly rejecting the president’s right to nominate and appoint a judge to the Supreme Court as defined in The Appointment Clause Article II, Section 2. At least, they would have even considered the President’s nominee even if it meant rejecting the nominee. It is constitutional to reject a presidential nomination, but only after a fair hearing. Garland blocked appointment hurt court rulings since the Supreme Court was at a stalemate (Cohen & Yang, 2019). The Supreme Court was left with eight judges, four democrat appointees and the other four Republican appointees. The court was reluctant to accept new cases considering the possibility of a 4-4 vote on ideological arguments.
2. Reflecting on Question 1, explain whether the Senate should have waited until after the midterm election in November 2018 to confirm President Trump nominee Justice Kennedy. Why or why not?
Applying the answer/judgement provided in the previous question, I believe that the Senate should have shelved Justice Kennedy nomination until after the November 2018 mid-elections. Recalling the kind of treatment that the republican controlled senate accorded the Democrats during the run-up to the 2016 general election, the best move was to postpone the confirmation of the Supreme Court nominee (Demirjian, 2016). It is without a doubt that the Democrats were still bitter from Garland's blocked nomination, it was only fair to return the favour.
The idea to proceed with the nomination of Justice Kennedy was a clear demonstration of the double-standards applied by the Republican-controlled Senate. Whey they blocked Garland's nomination to Supreme Court, they openly stated that they wanted the American Citizens to partake in the determination of the next Supreme Court Justice through their vote in the ballot (Pramuk, 2018). However, comes not a surprise that when it is their survival at stake, they decided to abandon their previous reasoning by clearly denying the public the chance to participate in the determination of the next Supreme Court judge through the ballot.
I believe that the senate should have waited until the mid-elections were over. It would have allowed the public to weigh in on the matter. However, since it was their selfish interests at play, they hurried the confirmation process of Justice Kennedy to cement their majority rule in the Supreme Court (Pramuk, 2018). Such behaviour is a demonstration of the intense political interplay and manipulation of the U.S. Justice system by political leaders.
3. What types of things should the President/Senate focus on when selecting a new justice? Should selection differ for the chief justice? Why?
Both the president and senate should abandon political issues and egos and accurately follows what the constitution says on nominations. It is without a doubt that over the years, the powers of the Senate have reduced significantly. Hence, the ending wars between the president and senate, each party attempting to assert the power balance. Such conduct raises serious issues regarding the separation of powers scheme that the founding fathers had in mind (Black, 2019) . The solution for this stalemate is only found through careful reading of the constitution regarding presidential nominations and confirmation by the Senate. It states that both parties should work together in the composition of a functional justice system.
The keywords are "working together." Working together means that the section process becomes consultative. No particular side – either the president or senate, should seek to dominate the other (Cohen & Yang, 2019). The president should respect the independence of the Senate, and the Senate should respect the office of the president. I want to propose that when a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the president should request the responsible senate committee, in this case, the Senate Judiciary Committee, to internally discuss the matter and provide a recommendation on the best candidate to the appointment. From the guidance provided by the senate committee, the president should proceed to nominate an individual or individuals that will be vetted by the senate before confirmation.
The selection should not be different for the Chief Justice. The constitution is quite vague about how or by whom the Chief Justice should be appointed (Black, 2019) . However, it is a public office, and I believe that he/she should undergo a similar process that other public officers undergo.
References
Black, E. (2019). Our constitution: The myth that binds us . Routledge.
Cohen, A., & Yang, C. S. (2019). Judicial politics and sentencing decisions. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , 11 (1), 160-91.
Demirjian, K. (2016, Mar 16). Republicans refuse to budge following Garland nomination to Supreme Court. The Washington Post . Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/16/republicans-refuse-to-budge-following-garland-nomination-to-supreme-court/
Pramuk, J. (2018, Jul 27). Key Democrats urge McConnell to wait until after midterms to confirm a Supreme Court justice, citing his blockage of Merrick Garland. CBC News . Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/democrats-urge-mcconnell-to-confirm-kennedy-replacement-after-midterms.html
Ulrich, L. (2016, May 27). Tracking the controversy over Judge Garland’s nomination. National Constitution Center . Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/tracking-the-controversy-over-judge-garlands-nomination/
