Electing a supreme court judge is not a decision to make lightly. Supreme Court Justices serve a life long term, and they make some of the most important, weighty decisions that determine the fate of our laws, lives and the history of our country. Almost every decision the Supreme Court has made occupies space in the history textbooks that we read while growing up. So- why, after Judge Antonin Scalia died, is his post still empty?
When a Supreme Court Judge dies, it is the President's job to select qualified candidates to replace them and submit them for consideration to the Senate. President Obama has done that, but the Senate does not simply look over and then reject these candidates, no, they outright refuse to consider anyone. They refuse to even accept any recommendations from the President at all. None. Why?
In a powerful speech that Senator Elizabeth Warren (of Massachusetts) gave in the Senate, she called the members of the Senate out and reminded them to "do their job". She told them that just because their President was a democrat, and there was an election coming up, does not mean that he is not still the rightful President right now. If you have not seen this moving speech, here it is:
The Senate is comprised of mainly Republicans at the moment, as we all know, and most believe they should wait until the next elected administration comes into office. But others, including Elizabeth Warren, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, highly disagree. Reid commented on this subject, saying:
"With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities."
On the other hand, Republican Senator Ted Cruz is of the opinion that the Senate should wait. He does not want a vote to be cast yet, or for the senate to consider anyone that Obama names. He said that "the Senate needs to stand strong and say, 'We're not going to give up the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee.'" His Republican opponent Donald Trump agrees, saying to "delay, delay, delay."
So, what is the right thing to do? It depends on who you ask, most likely.
A Republican would say wait, a Democrat would say pick now. One route may have consequences while the other may have just as many.
On one hand, waiting until the next administration takes power would be leaving the position for a Supreme Court Justice vacant for nearly an entire year, which has never happened before in our history, undermines the structure of our government and goes against the Constitution of this country.
On the other hand, if the Senate accepts possible candidates and votes right now, there is the chance another liberal candidate would be selected, tipping the balance of liberal and conservative voices in the Supreme Court towards liberal, which is not entirely desirable for this country either.
It is a tough decision to make. Some of us sleep better at night knowing that the decisions the Supreme Court makes are based on an equal amount of voices to represent both liberal and conservative views. However, some of us also sleep better at night knowing that, despite the corruptibility of the government, that the Constitution of our country is still being upheld.
