The Supreme Court has nine Justices for almost one simple fact: The fact being that the branch of government tasked with interpreting the United States Constitution must not routinely tie in making decisions of national importance if anything new is to be accomplished.

(NOTE: I have adapted this article from a speech I gave earlier in the week and felt it prudent to share with you.)

After Justice Scalia’s untimely death, President Obama regarded the vacancy and decided to nominate moderately affiliated chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Merrick Garland for the open seat. Being a political science major and a citizen of this nation, some of Congress’ refusal to meet with Merrick Garland is both distressing and a matter of utmost importance to me, as it highlights both the democracy’s function and dysfunction when it comes to making bipartisan decisions.

Today I will highlight what the Constitution says about the matter, why it should be considered, how we could fix this problem, and endeavor to present evidence of the fact that we need to at least consider how the refusal of some members of Congress to meet the new Supreme Court nominee is unethical and a disregard to their constitutionally appointed duties.

The matter of meeting with a Supreme Court Justice before they are confirmed or denied is constitutionally allotted for.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United Constitution states that, and I quote, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law..."

Again, my argument is very simple—perhaps the simplest argument I have ever presented. It is not to convince you to accept wholeheartedly our current President’s Supreme Court nomination or to make you question your political views, it is only for you to acknowledge or at least think about acknowledging the fact that your right to be fairly represented as a people is being violated.

It is the sentence of, “and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court...” that is most telling in this matter.

He, of course, as predicated earlier in the Articles, is the President of the United States of America. And for Congress to consent or not consent to an appointment, they first must meet with the appointee. In fact, according to my survey “Supreme Court Nominations,” the consensus was divided in half on the question of, “Do you support some of Congress' refusal to meet with President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland?”

Now that we’ve spoken about the Constitutional technicalities, let’s broach why this decision should be considered important.

There are several rights guaranteed to us, the citizens, by the Constitution.

Some of those are explicit and others, well, they are implicit. Some social liberties are those that have been debated on since our country’s founding.

But there is one thing that a majority of poll-taking, voting Americans agree on, according to polls from CNN, NBC, and Politico, they feel that their voices, being facilitated through officials that they took part in electing, are being lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.

In fact, Republicans quickly rejected President Obama’s nomination. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, appeared on the Senate floor shortly after the president’s remarks to declare an end, no, a war on Judge Garland’s nomination, no matter his qualifications. In case there was any doubt, Senator McConnell later called Judge Garland personally to say he would not be receiving him in his Capitol office nor taking any action on his nomination. In simple words, not doing his job.

In the New York Times article titled “Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court” by Michael D. Shear, the prolific journalist cites Senator McConnell’s speech: “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” Senator McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.”

Well, Mr. Senator, I hate to say it, but the people have given their voices. To you.

Now that we know a little more about where the problem stems from and what the problem is, let us talk about ways it could be fixed

So in the Marxist sense of sense of the word, do we yell down with the bourgeoisie, and storm the Capitol?

No. No, we do not. That would be a “capitol” offense.

What we do, my dear people, is take hold of those certain unalienable rights and petition our leaders. We let them hear our voices. And we hold them accountable to their promises. This may seem grandiose to you and to me—well, it only burdens my heart with grief for my people that we must resort to these measures to get some of our elected officials to do their jobs.

So my treasured citizens, will you be the generation that allows such denial of of our democratic system? Or will you be the generation that preserves it?

To conclude, I hope that it is realized that by Congress’ refusing a meeting with Supreme Court Justice Nominee Merrick Garland that they are also refusing to uphold their oath to the American people.

I have highlighted what the Constitution says about the matter, why it should be considered, how we could fix this problem, and endeavored to present evidence of the fact that we need to at least consider how the refusal of some members of Congress to meet the new Supreme Court nominee is unethical and a disregard to their constitutionally appointed duties in order for you to understand the blatant disrespect and abandonment of position that some of our elected officials are giving us.

Please do not hesitate to hold them accountable for their actions. Write your congressman, start a petition, and even tweet the Majority Whip with the hashtag #DoYourJob. It is through these means and many more that the people will have their voice heard, their freedom protected, and their decisions secured.

Thank you.

Also, I have reopened the survey to the public and would love to hear your responses.