President Obama will soon nominate someone to succeed Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. This responsibility is not only critical to the operation of our highest court, it is a responsibility explicitly laid out in our Constitution: The president shall appoint a justice to serve our nation and the Senate will provide "advice and consent."
Once President Obama nominates a new justice, the Republican-led Senate can consider the nominee and decide not to support them -- that's their right, and it's what the Constitution means by "advice and consent."
What the Senate cannot do is abdicate this constitutional responsibility. Yet Senator Ron Johnson has proposed doing exactly that. He's putting Republican party politics ahead of our Constitution and offering up only excuses. "Doing nothing is also an action," he said this week.
His "doing nothing" is actually not action, it's partisan obstruction. His "doing nothing" is why Washington has become so dysfunctional. His "doing nothing" flies in the face of his constitutional responsibility, and it has to stop. So I'm calling on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Johnson, and other Senate Republicans to drop their knee-jerk obstruction and give the president's Supreme Court nominee fair consideration.
But I need your help to build pressure.
Tell Mitch McConnell, Ron Johnson, and the Senate to do their jobs and give fair consideration to President Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee.
The Supreme Court plays a unique role in applying the Constitution to important questions of American life and business, but if Senator Johnson and other Senate Republicans continue on this damaging path, our country could be waiting over a year for a new Supreme Court justice.
Join me in reminding Senator Johnson, Mitch McConnell, and other Senate Republicans of their crucial responsibility.
Tell Senator Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, and the Senate to do their jobs and give fair consideration to President Obama's justice nominee.
Senator Johnson's tactics have already damaged one branch of government -- we can't let him use the same tactics on another.
(links removed. Don't want anyone to accidentally give him any encouragement. If YOU want to send him anything, look up the email yourself!)
Dear Mr. Feingold,
Yes, the Senate has the authority to approve or disapprove a Presidential Supreme Court appointment.
What they do not have is a Constitutional responsibility to approve an appointee who will not rule based upon the original intent and wording of the Constitution. They do not have the responsibility to approve someone who will legislate from the bench.
The Supreme Court is not there to interpret the Constitution as a "living document" - they are there to rule on cases and how the Constitution, as written and ans originally intended, allows or prohibits that particular law in question.
We have had entirely too much "interpretation" from the Supreme Court in my lifetime. It's time for this to end.
If President Obama nominates someone with the above credentials and judicial record, I am all for them. Otherwise, let's wait until next February.
There is no case before the Supreme Court so critical tha we need to rush this. I cannot conceive of any such case arising in the next year.
Except, possibly, a ruling on whether or not we have had a legitimate President for the last two terms - and even that could wait until next year - he's already done about all the damage he could, unless the CONgress refuses to do their jobs.
Funny how when the Demonrats obstructed Republican appointees, there was no hoo-haw raised...