The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the Senate be required to vote on the nominee for the Supreme Court within a set time?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 88959
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Usually, if you don't do your job, you get fired. But some Americans feel like they are above this, specifically Senators that worry more about partisan influence than properly governing the people. Let me set the scene:

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 Senate is doing their job, telling Obama "no, thank you" on his nominies, just like the Constitution says.
Debate Round No. 1


Actually, saying "no thank you" to the nominee would be if they voted against him. But the Senate does not even have the decency to put aside their partisan bickering to do that. They must be required to do their job and at least vote on the nominee.


Nope, ignoring the nomination is them doing their job and saying "no, thank you". Listen, instead of giving me your worthless opinion, just cite where the Constitution says the Senate must vote on a nominee?
Debate Round No. 2


As the Appointment Clause of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) states: "He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of 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.


As expected, pro was unable to show where the Constitution says the Senate must vote. This was expected because it does not say this. The Senate has told Obana no. Case closed.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
Con could have won by arguing that failure to vote has the same impact as not confirming a nominee, and even gone as far as to argue that those refusing to have hearings on the mater are better serving the constituency that elected them by preventing POTUS from nominating another candidate after rejecting the current one, especially during an election year.

This debate was not good enough to vote for either case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
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