The Instigator
kyleflanagan97
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Merrick Garland have a confirmation hearing for the SCOTUS?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
kyleflanagan97
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 280 times Debate No: 91415
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

kyleflanagan97

Pro

First round is acceptance of debate.
ViceRegent

Con

Not if one is concerned with the rights of the people.
Debate Round No. 1
kyleflanagan97

Pro

Under Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution it gives the PRESIDENT the right to appoint judges and other positions, it does not say how long he can do that or that this responsibility goes away when he only has one year left in office. Under the same article it is the job of congress to advise and consent, in the form of meetings and then a vote. It is not their job, and I would argue it is unconstitutional, for members of congress to halt the process of a confirmation hearing. It does not matter that if a liberal was appointed the court would swing liberal, 5-4. That is not to be considered when appointing a justice. Their job is to meet and vote, and they have refused to meet with Merrick Garland and they have refused to hold a vote on this. If they disagree with his confirmation, for any reason, it is their job to vote nay on the confirmation. That is their constitutional right, and if the people truly agree with congress they will tell their elected representatives to also vote nay.
ViceRegent

Con

Ahhh, no, the president has the Constitutional authority to NOMINATE those he chooses for federal office. And no, it is the Constitutional authority of the Senate (not the House) to advise and consent on those the President nominates. And by not voting on this tyrant Obama has appointed, then Senate is withholding their consent. Of course, the Senate has the authority to give or withhold that consent for any reason or no reason, according to the Constitution. They have no duty to meet with anyone they do not wish to meet with, they have no duty to vote for anyone they do not wish to vote for. They Senate has told Obama no. Deal with it.
Debate Round No. 2
kyleflanagan97

Pro

No, the President APPOINTS judges, they are confirmed by senate. And a senator is still a representative in the sense that they represent the people. And we have elected them to represent us with their vote, not with the lack of a vote. And the senate has not told Obama no, a select group of members have told Obama no, and I will not just deal with. When American's stop holding our representatives ( both House And Senate members) responsible for their actions is the day that they stop doing their jobs, and that day has already come. They represent you and I, so I hold them responsible when they are not doing their job, they answer to us, the voters. Part of the reason that no one gets anything done in D.C. is because they know their are few people who actually hold them to any kind of standard in their district or state. And I understand that they are under no obligation to meet with him, if they were then they would have met with him and voted on it, but I am arguing that they shouldn't have to be forced to do it in a timely manner. They should know that a split 4-4 split in the supreme court is the worse possible scenario because it cripples one of the three branches of government. This president was elected to lead for 4 years in 2012, and he should be leading for the entire 4 years. The government does not go on hold during an election year.
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, read the very Constitution you sited, for it clearly says he NOMINATES people he wishes to serve.

And the majority of the Senators were chosen by people who DID NOT want a liberal tyrant on the Supreme Court.

And yes, but refusing to vote, the Senate is telling the President "no". They have done their jobs. They have protected American from a liberal scumbag.
Debate Round No. 3
kyleflanagan97

Pro

They have not done their job, and Merrick Garland is not a liberal scumbag, he has an impeccable record, that is why he was chosen by Obama. Because they chose someone who was middle of the aisle so that republicans would have no reason to refuse a confirmation besides they are afraid of a liberal leaning court.
ViceRegent

Con

Yep, the Senate has told the President they do not consent to this Libtard. Have Obama nominate a Constitutionalist. He will get his man.
Debate Round No. 4
kyleflanagan97

Pro

See but that is my concern, the Senate is not confirming because of his political affiliation, but is saying to the public that they are not doing it because it should be the next president's choice. You have basically just agreed with me, you are saying that if Obama had nominated a republican that he or she would get confirmed, but one's political views, unless they are so out there that they would indicate insanity and an inability to perform his job, should not be factored into the confirmation. It should be if they have the qualifications necessary to be a justice, which Garland does, and their is no debate to that.
ViceRegent

Con

It does not matter the reason why. A Senator could not want to vote for a guy because he wears glasses. But, of course, the Senate will not put a dude who ignores the Constitution into office. This is there job.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ockham 1 year ago
Ockham
kyleflanagan97ViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, since Con used the insult "Libtard." Both sides had some spelling errors, the arguments were of roughly equal strength, and both sides cited the Constitution and no other sources. Good debate.