Supreme Court nominee: Should congress hold confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland?

  • The Senate should hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland

    The Senate should hold confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland. It is their constitutional duty to provide advise and consent on nominees. The fact that this is an election year does not absolve the body from fulfilling its duty. This is brazen politics and it sets a bad precedent.

  • Yes, history tells us this is the case.

    Going back to 1912 there have been 6 Supreme Court nominees to be presented to congress in the last year of a presidential term. President Obama has a constitutional responsibility to point a successor to a vacant seat on the court. Furthermore, the constitution requires congress to hold a hearing to confirm or deny that nomination. The president has done his portion, it is now time for the senate to hold a hearing.

  • Do your job

    The senators who won't give him a hearing don't deserve their seat. They don't deserve the taxpayers money for not working. The GOP are ridiculous enough but now by doing this it's basically a slap in the face to the American people saying fuck you your voice doesn't matter. #DoYourJob

  • Agree with the first two votes - it is their constitutional job.

    Garland has an incredibly respectable track record serving the country as a diligent and reasonable jurist. He's previously been confirmed with bipartisan support, and appears to have all of the ideal qualities that a SCOTUS nominee ought to have. The constitution clearly dictates that it is the president's job to nominate and the Senate's job to confirm. Therefore, both the POTUS and Senate should uphold their constitutional duties.

  • Yes, congress should hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland.

    Congress should hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland. There is no reason not too. The American people elected President Obama, and it is his right to nominate Supreme Court justices. The members of congress must do their jobs and put aside their personal agendas. It is not good for the country to have a vacancy on the court for a long period of time. They do not have to chose Garland, but they need to at least respect the President's nomination and follow procedure.

  • It's their job...

    This is clearly partisan politicking. One job of the Senate is to hold confirmation hearings on presidential supreme court nominees. It would be a dereliction of duty for the president to avoid nominating and a dereliction of duty for the Senate to refuse hearings. They can always vote no, but their job is to hold the hearing.

  • The shoe is on the other foot

    There's a video of Joe Biden arguing against appointing a Supreme Court justice during an election year. Now, the democrats are in a hurry to hold confirmation hearings before the elections. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To be fair, we should wait until after the elections so that representation is balanced.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.