"Just so we're all clear here, the Constitution gives the President absolute power to "nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...appoint Judges of the Supreme Court" regardless of when the next election is.
"But Merrick Garland!" is not actually a valid argument. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to "advise and consent." It did not consent to Garland's nomination, so Garland did not get a vote.
The Senate back then followed the so-called "Biden Rule"--named for, ironically enough, Joe Biden, who in 1992 said that when a vacancy arises in an election year and the White House and Senate are CONTROLLED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES, then the vacancy should not be filled until after the election so the people essentially have the final say.
Here, Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate, so the Biden Rule does not apply as it did when Antonin Scalia died in 2016.
There is no valid argument--Constitutional, legal, moral, or otherwise--for not filling this Supreme Court vacancy immediately. Whether it is politically wise is open to debate, but it is absolutely lawful and proper to do so."
-Dan O Donnell (WISN Milwaukee, WI)
Well... isn't THAT interesting?
MACS wrote:
