?

Log in

supreme court nomination process - Ilya Shlyakhter (notestaff) - letters to editors
April 3rd, 2016
04:27 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
supreme court nomination process
Vetting Supreme Court nominees -- not the nominator -- is the Senate's job

While the mechanics may be ambiguous — as your Op-Ed states, “Both sides are acting as if advice and consent is a rule, but instead it is a standard” — its purpose is clearly to vet the nominees. (“Is stonewalling legit?” Opinion, March 30)

Republicans' nominee-blind process instead vets presidents. That vetting, under the Constitution, rests with voters; their choice is not subject to the Senate's “advice and consent.”

The Senate may, through action or inaction, reject a particular nominee. But it may not reject the nominator.

No matter what reason Senate Republicans give — the approaching end of the president's term, the hypocrisy of some Democrats, the court's fragile balance — vetting the nominator is simply not the Senate's job.

[original/unedited letter:

While the mechanics of "advice and consent" may be ambiguous, its purpose is clearly to vet the nominees. Republicans' nominee-blind process instead vets Presidents. That vetting, under the Constitution, rests with voters; their choice is not subject to the Senate's "advice and consent".

The Senate may, through action or inaction, reject a particular nominee. But it may not reject the nominator. No matter what reason Senate Republicans give -- the approaching end of the President's term, the hypocrisy of some Democrats, the Court's fragile balance -- vetting the nominator is simply not the Senate's job. If it was, the Constitution would require the Senate's consent before nominations are made.]

Tags: , , ,

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:to_the_editor
Date:April 3rd, 2016 08:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ilya Shlyakhter Powered by LiveJournal.com