For the reasons laid out below, I call on Senator Schumer, and any of his constitution-loving colleagues of both parties, to demand that no action on additional Supreme Court nominees proceed until the existing constitutional crisis is addressed.
It is the case that Senate Republicans created a constitutional crisis by refusing to uphold their constitutional role of advice and consent for the filling of a vacant seat on the US Supreme Court. The election of a new president does not actually resolve the crisis. Damage to constitutional order has been done and remains until addressed.
There was no suggestion that there was a particular basis for the denial of fulfilling their constitutional role, therefore the standing precedent is that processing of Supreme Court appointees is at the mere whim of senators, and will remain thus until a clear precedent is established, or wrong doing acknowledged and remedied.
I believe it is therefore incumbent on senators of both parties to now demand a satisfactory resolution of the crisis before resuming the business as usual conduct that Senator McConnell and his leadership cohorts so wantonly disregarded. Resolution might take a number of forms, but certainly needs to include a bi-partisan agreement on the interpretation of the Senate constitutional responsibility to be applied on a go-forward basis.
Ideally the agreed interpretation would be codified in statute. Such codification would place re-interpretation of the Constitution beyond the reach of a single party in majority of a single house of Congress. A statutory clarification would also open the possibility of significant civil and/or criminal penalty for violation, quite warranted as such conduct represents a breach of the oath of office to defend and uphold the constitution.
If the agreed interpretation establishes that in hindsight the actions taken were in keeping with the go-forward constitutional interpretation, then the matter is resolved. Additional appointees should proceed expeditiously. Such an agreement must then be held to regardless of circumstance, meaning any appointee from an incumbent president in their final months (whatever the agreed terms) would be denied hearing and vote even if the circumstances of the election were to show that the majority party was to become the minority party in the next session of congress.
If the agreed interpretation instead shows that there was a breach of the public trust, then additional corrective action is needed before resuming consideration of additional nominees. The obvious parties to corrective action would appear to be those leaders who would then have been shown to have violated their oath, as well as to the nominee who was denied the consideration afforded him under the constitution.
If any members of congress have violated their oath of office, disciplinary review is needed, seeming to call for censure or worse.
As for the nominee, Mr Garland, it would seem reasonable that jointly the majority and minority leadership could appeal to the President to resubmit Mr Garland as a nominee. Mind you this in no way guarantees that Mr Garland would be confirmed and take a seat on the high court. It is rather a reflection that he was due consideration and a vote for which he was denied.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)