The opening words of the preamble to the United States Constitution are familiar to us all: “We the People.” But what exactly do they mean?
It was by “the People” that the Constitution was written and ratified. It is for “the People” that my colleagues and I, along with every other public official across these United States, now serve. And it was on behalf of “the People” that the Constitution established “one supreme Court,” consisting of judges appointed “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”
Since the tragic passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the Constitution.
But there should be no controversy. The text of our founding charter is clear: The president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, and the Senate has full and complete power to confirm nominees or to withhold consent.
It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider—much less accept or reject—presidential nominees.
This should not be controversial. It is how virtually every student of the Constitution—and nearly every member of Congress—has understood the Senate’s power of “Advice and Consent” for the past 228 years since the Constitution was ratified.
But now, with the presidential election in full swing, Obama and his allies in Congress and the media claim that the opposite is true. As they tell it, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and to vote on the candidate whom Obama eventually nominates to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.
I respectfully dissent.
