What the Constitution has to say about the Supreme Court vacancy
By Josh Chafetz - 02/16/16 06:00 AM EST
In the aftermath of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, the debate about his successor very quickly shifted into a constitutional register. The question became one of authority: not who should be appointed, but rather who would get to make the appointment.
A number of prominent Republicans — including both those running for president and those in power in the Senate — have insisted that the next president should name the next justice, as a form of "letting the voters decide.
" Democrats have retorted that the current president has the constitutional duty and authority to make the selection. President Obama insisted that he would "fulfill [his] constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor
in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.
" Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) argued that "Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential constitutional responsibilities."
Commentators have kept the volume turned to 11, speculating about a "constitutional crisis" in the making or about the collapse of our constitutional system.
--------------------------------------------------
Time for you, pinto, to engage a reverse gear as you are heading
for a "hypocracy" heap-scrap, as our friend on HC would term it.
If Obama (current president has the constitutional duty and authority to make the selection.) and Schumer can champion
the Constitution in their rare moments of political comprehension, so can you.
