You may have heard recently about the controversy
surrounding President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, and ever since then
there has been a vacancy on the court. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution
states, “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.” The President has always nominated an
individual for the Court, and the Senate rejects or confirms them after going
through a lengthy confirmation hearing in which they interview the candidate
about their background, choices, and legal opinions. This process is designed to provide the “checks
and balances” we have discussed in class.
Both the President and the Senate have important roles in choosing our
next Supreme Court Justice.
By all accounts,
President Obama’s nominee is qualified to serve. Garland currently serves as the Chief Judge
on the U.S. Court of Appeals. According to the White House, Garland has a “distinguished
career and impeccable credentials.” So what’s causing all the controversy? There are 9 Supreme Court Justices –
currently 4 of them are considered to be more liberal on issues, and the other
5 (before Scalia’s passing) are more moderate and conservative. Justice Scalia
was by all accounts a more conservative justice – perhaps one of the most
conservative on the bench. With his
passing, President Obama has the potential to nominate a more liberal justice,
which will effectively shift the political leanings of the Court – giving the
liberal justices a majority for the first time in years.
Republican Senators have said they will deny holding confirmation hearings for Garland. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell said he “agrees that this decision ought to be made by the net President, whoever is elected.” For his part, President Obama has said the Constitution is clear, it’s his responsibility to nominate someone, and he has done so.
Republican Senators have said they will deny holding confirmation hearings for Garland. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell said he “agrees that this decision ought to be made by the net President, whoever is elected.” For his part, President Obama has said the Constitution is clear, it’s his responsibility to nominate someone, and he has done so.
So my question to you this week is twofold,
First, “Do you think the Senate should hold confirmation hearings for Merrick
Garland, or should we wait until after the election for the incoming President
to do so?” Second, “If you sat on the
Supreme Court, what is one issue that you would like to issue a ruling on – and
what would be your opinion?” You must
answer both questions for full credit.
Answers are due no later than Wednesday, June 8th, 2016.
I think Obama should be the one to choose since he is the current president. The only reason why there is a debate, because Obama has chosen someone who has more liberal views. If I was in the supreme court and had one issue up for ruling I would bring up legalizing cannabis for recreational use. I would be for legalizing it, because of the financial benefits and the new jobs that can be created by doing so.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should hold conformation hearings until after the election for the incoming president to do so. I would rule for legalizing marijuana for recreational use. By doing so there are so many benefits and the money can be used from the taxes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that President Obama should be allowed to make a decision because he is still the president, although this is his last year serving 2 terms. If I were to be in the supreme court, I would say I would try to bring up the legalization of marijuana, but for this circumstance, I would want there to be protected laws for the LGBT community first. I believe that we are still fighting for civil rights even after a few hundred years. I usually try not to speak of this often, but I have yet to work a job position where I am not discriminated against for being a homosexual male. The fact that I could easily be fired just for being gay (when it has absolutely NO correlation to my ability as a worker) is absolutely absurd and should not be legal. This genuinely pisses me off because it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable within my own work environment. It should not be that way, and something needs to be done about it, because I believe that this is affecting civil rights as a US Citizen.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that conformation hearings should preside as normal, as is legal. Under no circumstance should a presidents power be removed before he leaves office simply because we know he is an outgoing president. James Buchanan(the president before Abraham Lincoln) is considered one of the worst presidents in history, because he came to the conclusion the dealing with the Confederate states wasn't his issue, simply because he was an outgoing president. As a result, we know exactly what happens when a president either chooses not to do his job or has his power taken away from him before it should be. Seriously, isn't refusing to do your job when your supposed to a thing that gets everyone else fired??
ReplyDeleteAs for something I would like to make a ruling on, I'm not sure how hot of a topic this issue is, but I would love to get rid of a corporations power to donate money to an elected official, only individual people should be allowed to do this, seeing as only individual people can vote. This might, hopefully, help us deal with issues of corruption and bribed or "brought" officials and members of government.
As the constitution states and since President Obama is still in office then as his duty, he should nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. Obama is our President till the day our next elected President steps foot into his shoes. Of course they don't want to hold hearings for Garland on the soul reason that he is a liberal and not conservative.
ReplyDeleteAs Supreme Court Justice, I would want to have one of my main focuses be on the better way to protect our animals. We need to regulate the use of animals in places such as Sea World. Also we need to get protection of farm animals. Farm animals are not yet protect by federal law. This is would be my main focus as a Court Justice.
I do believe they should go on with the hearings for Garland. Obama has a job to do and so do they. If it is said that the President could nominate then so be it. If there is such a big problem then handle it in the hearings, that is what they're there for right? But to strip Obama of his part in this is disrespectful and childlike.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a chance to be on the Supreme Court, there would be a lot of things I would love to change. But I recently seen a video on how our meat is slaughtered. I do not have a problem with being able to have meat but these animals are not being treated right. There should be some type of respect for these animals. Also their living environment is unsanitary. Which can effect the people who eat the meat. I would definitely try and do something about that.
I do honestly believe that they should hold these confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland and that Obama is right to say that it is his responsibility to decide who is to be in that decision. i think it is wrong for others to say otherwise, in my opinion these are the same people that are hoping for Donald Trump to be elected. i dont know the current standpoint of other elected officials but its only a way to sway it in their own position so that it benefits their ideals. this is the reason why we have checks and balances to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIf i was on the supreme court though, first i dont think i would know what to do with myself. though a major concern i have for the people is that money isnt distributed evenly among the people. i am personally outraged to hear that 40% of America's Wealth is controlled by 1% of the united States population. i dont know what that position can do about that, if there even is a way, but i know its not right.
~Patrick Shaffer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitchell on the fact that I too feel that Obama should be the one to do the nominating of the next supreme court justice due to the fact that he is still the president.
ReplyDeleteIf I were in the supreme court, I would push more for the people. I would do more than just just say my peace, I would be in a position to where I could show proof and results. Like if there is a situation where something is clearly being done wrong and that there is need for action, I would not only say my peace, but, I would Show proof and also try to take action my self even if there was nothing I could do, I would still find a way. Things can not stay the same
#IDONTBLOGLOL
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, this sounds like just a play by the Republicans of the Senate to make sure that the Democrats can not take majority power in the Supreme Court the way the Republicans already do in Congress (much to the detriment of the country, currently). I am not against conservative policies, but the Republicans of D.C. (and the government in general) tend to push an almost tyrannical agenda against any who oppose their views in the slightest, and they're responsible for a great many problems with the US government right now, especially voter suppression. They desire to keep the federal government from doing anything, which means corporations can abuse workers and outsource jobs, and our country falls further into its pit. The good portion of the Democratic elite might be bought just as thoroughly as the Republicans, but at least 'some' of them try to do something (unfortunately, those Democratic elites are also the ones trying to suppress actual liberals like Bernie Sanders, and keep money in politics).
ReplyDeleteI believe Garland should be able to able to proceed with his hearings and that Obama has the Constitutional right to elect the next Supreme Court judge. If Garland has all the qualities and qualifications then it makes the Republican judges basing their decision off of Garland's liberal views. I believe if he was elected judge their would be a even liberal and conservative views on the court. I would issue a ruling on Abortion being legal and make it up to the woman to decide. It just kills me that it is 2016 and we are still telling women what to do.
ReplyDeleteYes,any or every senate should go through confirmation hearing regardless of their background education. The supreme court should make the best decision when choosing the person. One person opinion or choices in the supreme court could negatively affect this country. It's better for 8 people to make a wise choice rather than a president. I believe we should wait for the next president to choose the next judge. An issue that i would like to issue a ruling on " Maybe Gay Marriage". People should mind their own business and respect other people decision. People would never understand if they don't have empathy for those who really suffer from discrimination. I would say " let them live their life and marry who they love" sometime they show true love by maintaining a marriage versus opposite couples.
ReplyDeleteI feel that since Obama is still in office, he should be the one to make that decision. Just because he is coming to the end of his term, doesn't mean he shouldn't get the right that is granted to him. If I were on the Supreme Court and got to issue a ruling on is doing away with privatized prisons. The fact that they just throw anyone in prison to make money (like many other things in this world) is ridiculous. It ruins the lives of people who commit minor offenses while you have dangerous people running free in other places.
ReplyDeleteI think we should wait till after the election. I guess I would bring up the Transgender bathroom issue and how childish it is. let people use the bathroom they want. Then I should try to get them to focus on the homeless problem.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as President Obama is still in office, the senate should continue to go through with the confirmation hearing. If I were a Senator, I would probably bring to attention how despite gay marriage being legal, gay equality is still an issue. In fact, there are several states in which gay and lesbian people do not have basic protection from employment and housing discrimination.
ReplyDeletei believe that sine Obama is still i office that the senate needs to continue with everything, the supreme court is in charge of making the best decision when choosing who should be represented. if we just had one person than that could have an negative impact on out country, i think that it is better to have 8 people to made a decision than one because it gives more opinions and different thinking styles.
ReplyDeleteObama should chose. He still has 8 months in office. I would be a heavy advocate for LGBT issues and would try to serve the community justly.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court is vital to our governmental system. To hold out this long is ridiculous. The Senate should do their duty and hold the hearings. They are going against what the rules require of them. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would be an advocate for three main issues: 1) gay rights, 2) womens rights, and 3) prison reform. All drive me in passion and I strive to make a difference in each of them.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court is vital to our governmental system. To hold out this long is ridiculous. The Senate should do their duty and hold the hearings. They are going against what the rules require of them. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would be an advocate for three main issues: 1) gay rights, 2) womens rights, and 3) prison reform. All drive me in passion and I strive to make a difference in each of them.
ReplyDeleteI believe they should let president obama go ahead and let his nominee stick because he is the president. He was when he died and he still is until election. I can understand why there would be some debate if it had happened like a month before reelections but since it is so far out i believe obama has the right to decide. I think there should be a ruling on the men in prison/jails that have very little to non violent sentences to be released because the prisons/jails are over crowded. As a tax payer i think paying all that money to house men that are violent criminals that are sitting for offenses that are so little i believe we should let them out. I also think we should bring our troops home. That would be my ruling.
ReplyDeleteI believe they should let president obama go ahead and let his nominee stick because he is the president. He was when he died and he still is until election. I can understand why there would be some debate if it had happened like a month before reelections but since it is so far out i believe obama has the right to decide. I think there should be a ruling on the men in prison/jails that have very little to non violent sentences to be released because the prisons/jails are over crowded. As a tax payer i think paying all that money to house men that are violent criminals that are sitting for offenses that are so little i believe we should let them out. I also think we should bring our troops home. That would be my ruling.
ReplyDeleteI think they should allow president Obama to go through with his nominee because he still is in term. If I was allowed to voice my opinion on a ruling I would focus on abortion and allow women the right to do as they chose with their bodies. They are entitled to that much and the government shouldn't interfer with all the guidelines and regulations they have created.
ReplyDelete