Merrick Garland, to “Advice and Consent” or not to, that is the question.
Garland who has been called a “centrist” was appointed about three weeks ago by President Obama who said, “I have fulfilled my constitutional duty.”
Now in my humble, but expert opinion, it is time the Senate does theirs. And amazingly, I agree with Obama who also said, “It’s time for the senators to do theirs.”
As one of our greatest Statesman, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates…”
So what is the Senate’s constitutional “duty”? Well let us turn to the “supreme Law of the Land”, the Constitution. Per Article II, Section II, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…..,shall appoint…..Judges of the supreme court.” Meaning the Senate’s duty is to give their “Advice and Consent” when they seem fit to do so. There is in NO way shape or form that they have to give their “Advice and Consent.” If the Founders wanted it that way, they would have stated so. They gave the Senate the exclusive power to decide on their own when they would enforce their decision, not the President.
And, I cannot believe I am going to actually say this, but I think for the first time in my life Harry Reid and I agree. Because Reid said in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
In my opinion, with about seven months remaining, the Senate should fulfill their constitutional duty and whenever they see fit give their “Advice and Consent” for Garland. Thank you for reading, Marc