Should the Senate be required to vote on the nominee for the Supreme Court within a set time?
Debate Rounds (3)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative man, died recently. President Barack Obama, who was elected by the people to lead the government, nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The Constitution states that the Senate is in charge of reviewing and voting on the nomination. But Republican senators have vowed to obstruct Obama's nomination.
The Senate should be required to vote on a nomination to the Supreme Court within 3 months of the nomination. The partisan conflicts are less important than properly governing. The Supreme Court has not been able to do their job without the ninth justice. They have tied on votes that could determine the fate of our nation.
As a whole, the Senate should be required to do their job, and vote on the nominee for the Supreme Court.
The United States Senate should be required to do their job and vote on the nomination to the Supreme Court. It is their job to do so. Requiring the Senate to do their job and at least vote on the nominee is the least they can do. If they want to say "No thank you," then the way to do that is by voting "NO", not saying NO to voting.
The CON side has stated they want to see the actual text of the Constitution (above), which clearly states it is the Senate's job to vote upon Supreme Court nominations, not to obstruct them for partisan purposes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brings up the good point that the senate is basically refusing to do their job. Con then states that they're doing their job by telling Obama no. Pro rebuts this by saying actually if they did their job and told him no like con stated they would have voted against the nomination which they haven't done. I can not see any holes in Pro's logic. Con then asks Pro to cite directly where in the constitution where it says they must vote, which Pro did. However somehow Con still claims that Pro did not point out where it says they must vote in the constitution. It all seems a little ironic how Con relies so heavily on the evidence of the constitution yet his understanding of it makes the viewer question whether he has actually read and understands what it says which undermines his entire argument as a whole
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.