Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
It's interesting to think that according to the Constitution, if taken exactly word for word, the Senate has the power to obliterate SCOTUS. At least according the the Republican's interpretation of the Constitution.
“The President....shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court"
If partisan bickering continues, it's very possible that SCOTUS could be depleted entirely. Doubtful, but possible.
On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that the framers of the Constitution intended to give one branch of government the ability to obliterate another branch of government. It seems that the intention was for it to be a responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent (or dissent), but not to do simply nothing. If the senate dissents, it gives the President the opportunity to make another nomination. If they do nothing, then the seat remains vacant permanently.
It seems to me that if the Senate does nothing within a reasonable amount of time, by default, it should be taken as consent. "Silence is golden".
This would mean that Merrick Garland is the rightful Supreme Court Judge.
I'm sure that many would disagree, but if this was presented to SCOTUS, I have a feeling that they would rule that the Senate does have an obligation to either consent or dissent in a reasonable amount of time, and that the senate does not have the power to obliterate SCOTUS.
How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Garland is over and done with.