It is virtually unheard of for a Supreme Court nomination to be approved in a divided government in the last year of a president's term.
- AFA Sr VP Buddy Smith
President Barack Obama put before the United States Senate a nominee to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Despite an earlier promise by Senate leadership that a vote on a nominee by the outgoing president will not take place, Obama's defiant nature seems just as resolute.
Strongly urge your senators to "Hold Fast" to leadership's vow not to vote on Obama's nominee.
While the Constitution gives the president the responsibility to nominate Supreme Court justices, it also gives the Senate the responsibility to approve or reject them. The Constitution does not even require an unacceptable nominee be given a vote on the floor.
Obama's nominee, federal appeals judge Merrick Garland, should be rejected on the following grounds:
- Any Supreme Court nominee President Obama makes will tilt the balance on the Court dangerously to the left.
- It is virtually unheard of for a Supreme Court nomination to be approved in a divided government in the last year of a president's term. In fact, it hasn't happened since 1880. Given the enormous importance of Supreme Court decisions in our day, it's wise to defer this nomination to the next president. Let the people influence this nomination by their choice of the next president.
Email your two senators now! Urge them to hold fast to the Senate leadership's vow to reject any nomination by President Obama.