Villani: Arguing over Obama’s nominee a Supreme waste of time (letter)
I read Mike Littwin’s opinion on Feb. 16. Stepping aside from all the noise and useless finger pointing about whether Obama should send the Senate a nominee to replace Justice Scalia, or wait until after the election is a moot point, and a complete waste of time.
According to a Politifact article dated Feb. 14, “lame duck” presidents have nominated replacements six times in the past. Three by Democrats and three by Republicans. Interestingly, three of the presidents lost their re-election bid, LBJ in 1968, Hoover in 1932 and Taft in 1912. Three others won their re-election bid, Eisenhower in 1956, FDR in 1940, and Wilson in 1916. Some will point to Reagan as the last president to nominate a justice in his final year, and although Justice Anthony Kennedy took office during Ronald Reagan’s final year in office, Reagan had nominated him the previous November. He was Reagan’s third choice — after Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration. And the vacancy he was filling had opened the previous July.
The real focus should be on Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.
“The President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,” as written in Littwin’s opinion.
The key point of this part of the Constitution is the president should nominate a potential justice, “with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
I would offer the title of the Littwin column should read, “When will a President follow Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution?”
This thought, I fear, will get lost in the unending noise, once again.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.