 |
| Merrick Garland is Obama's latest SCOTUS nominee, what would be his third appointment during his presidency. The last president to appoint three justices was President Reagan, who, ironically enough, was the one to appoint Justice Scalia whose vacancy is causing this issue to arise in the first place (photo courtesy of wikimedia). |
First off, it's imperative that the nomination be considered since a significant portion of our judicial system is based on case law, the legal guidelines than arise from legal cases that make it into the courts, especially higher courts such as the Supreme Court. These cases become known as precedent and become a jumping off point for future legal decision making. If the nomination is not considered until the next president takes office, that will result in not only the rest of this Supreme Court term taking place with one justice short, but half of the next term falling under the same disadvantage. When Supreme Court cases are heard with fewer than nine justices, as intended, then results can change dramatically. If the Supreme Court makes a decision that results in a 4-4 tie, then the lower court decision stands, and that may complicate future issues involving the precedent these cases set forth. It may essentially result in precedent that will only need to be overruled later when the proper vehicle arises again.
Republican senators seem to also be freaking out over the fact that this would be Obama's third Supreme Court appointment, but he is far from the first president to reach this milestone. Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, Harrison, Grant, Lincoln, Jackson, Jefferson, J. Adams and Washington all appointed at least three justices during their presidencies and the world didn't fall apart. While Washington was certainly an anomaly (being the first president and essentially having to start the Supreme Court from nothing) with eleven appointments, others have appointed far more than Obama in more recent history. For example, FDR appointed eight and Eisenhower appointed five. It might influence the Supreme Court now, but it the court's make-up will inevitably change again in the future. For now, it's important to stick to the procedure set by our founding fathers, as originalist Scalia would undoubtedly want and allow the sitting president's nomination to be justly considered by the Senate, regardless of political parties and views.
What do you think about the Senate's refusal to acknowledge Obama's newest nominee? Share your reasons why or why not this issue needs to be resolved quickly.
