|If you are not aware, Justice Scalia, the longest serving member of the Supreme Court, died unexpectedly on February 13. The vacancy created by his death has caused a firestorm of controversy, with the Republicans in the Senate insisting that they will not confirm any nominee sent to them by President Obama, arguing that the “people” should have a say in who the nominee will be by the choice of their next president in approximately 8 months. Democrats, on the other hand, are insisting that Republicans have a constitutional duty to confirm an “acceptable nominee” and fill the vacancy as soon as possible. The following quote is from a 1987 New York Times editorial:
The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.
It almost goes without saying that the Times has changed its tune now that a Democrat is president and the future of the Court hangs in the balance.
Drawing on the assigned readings and current media accounts, use around 250- 300 words to discuss your perspective on the Supreme Court vacancy. Should the president nominate a potential justice? Should the Senate hold hearings on any Obama nominee? Why is this particular vacancy so critical, in your opinion? Your opinion is welcome, but be sure you are basing it on a correct interpretation of the constitutional process for nominating and confirming federal judges.
Drawing on the assigned readings and current media accounts, use around 250- 300 words to discuss your perspective on the Supreme Court vacancy.
Click to Download Solution
Purchase to Unlock Doc
Purchase Solution $27