Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Res. 661

House to Senate: Consider Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court

Argument in favor

The Senate is constitutionally obligated to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. Merrick Garland is a qualified judge who at least deserves formal consideration.

···
04/08/2016
“Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. My Republican colleagues have called Judge Garland a ‘consensus nominee’ and said that there is ‘no question’ he could be confirmed. Refusing to hold hearings on the president's nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs." [sanders.senate.gov]
Like (336)
Follow
Share
BarackObama's Opinion
···
04/08/2016
“I’ve selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence.” [nytimes.com]
Like (242)
Follow
Share
···
04/06/2016
Obviously the senate should consider the presidents nominee; otherwise, they're not doing their job.
Like (61)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

President Obama’s time in office is nearly over, and there's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nomination. Let the next President put forward their own choice.

David's Opinion
···
04/06/2016
If voters wanted another Obama judicial nominee appointed to the Supreme Court, they would not have given control of the senate to the Republicans.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
Gopin2020's Opinion
···
04/07/2016
No let the next president fill the seat, this is what the American people have said what should be done
Like (26)
Follow
Share
Wx5jcp's Opinion
···
04/06/2016
The Democrats wanted this several times before. They change the rules at their convenience. Cant have it both ways.
Like (16)
Follow
Share

simple resolution Progress


  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedMarch 23rd, 2016
    “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. My Republican colleagues have called Judge Garland a ‘consensus nominee’ and said that there is ‘no question’ he could be confirmed. Refusing to hold hearings on the president's nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs." [sanders.senate.gov]
    Like (336)
    Follow
    Share
    If voters wanted another Obama judicial nominee appointed to the Supreme Court, they would not have given control of the senate to the Republicans.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    “I’ve selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence.” [nytimes.com]
    Like (242)
    Follow
    Share
    Obviously the senate should consider the presidents nominee; otherwise, they're not doing their job.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    For all the idiots referring to the dems wanting to wait, their reasoning was that President Bush had lost the majority vote, so in fact, he wasn't the choice of the majority of the voting citizens, unlike Obama that won with a 56% majority! The argument was originally based on the contention that Bush was NOT in fact the people's choice! The argument would not have been brought forth if Bush had won the majority vote.
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Give the man a hearing. This political crap is destroying our country. If he's not qualified then dont confirm him.
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    The court deserves a full slate of justices. There is no reason to delay the functioning of the government. Waiting because you might get your way in a year is immature and irresponsible.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    No let the next president fill the seat, this is what the American people have said what should be done
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    The Senate has a constitutional responsibility and obligation to consider the President's Supreme Court nominee. While the Senate is not required to approve Judge Garland, it is nevertheless constitutionally mandated to opine on the President's specific nominee. The Senate cannot announce as a general notion that it will not consider any Supreme Court nomination by President Obama, no matter how qualified the nominee. The Approvals Clause of the Constitution is a key element of our checks and balances system of governance. But when the Senate refuses (as it does now) to play its crucial part in the nomination-approval-appointment process, the entire system risks collapsing in on itself. Whether or not the Senate does its job should not be a partisan issue. We, the People, elected Congress to represent us at the Capitol. But the Senate's current political tantrum--its deliberate failure to act at all on this important matter--amounts to intentional neglect of its most important duty, which is governing this great nation.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Just do your job? Im going to put off working at my job until the next president.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    How long will we have a not fully functional Supreme Court in order for conservatives to enjoy yet another anti-Obama wet dream?
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    The Democrats wanted this several times before. They change the rules at their convenience. Cant have it both ways.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    The Senate needs to do it's job on advise and consent. If it refuses, and after 90-day notification, then then it needs to step aside and President Obama directly confirms Merrick Garland, Republican politics be damned! To quote Dr. Robert Reich: "This strikes me as a reasonable idea: If the Senate fails to provide the President “advice and consent” on his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, within a reasonable amount of time, the Senate should be deemed to have waived its right under the Constitution to provide such advice and consent. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly held that a constitutional right may be forfeited by the failure to make timely assertion of that right. So President Obama should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act within, say, 90 days (the historical average between nomination and confirmation is 25 days) to be a waiver of its right to participate in the process. If after 90 days the Senate still hasn't acted, the President will exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court. I expect the Senate would then bring suit challenging the appointment. And the Supreme Court would decide, presumably with Garland recusing himself. Our system would work better this way. The threat that a president could proceed with an appointment if the Senate fails to do its job would force the Senate to provide its advice and consent on a timely basis so our government can function."
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Court needs full complement to function or else become useless as congress
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    There needs to be at least a consideration for Garland becoming the next justice. The Republicans attitude towards this matter is total nonsense.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans keep saying that the people should vote on it. We the people did vote on it when we elected President Obama for a second term. What I find most aggravating however is the fact that Republicans would confirm him during the real lame duck session, since a new democratic president may propose a more left-leaning candidate.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Do your job whether you like the person you have to work with to get it done or not!! It's called professionalism!!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Nah
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The majority of American people chose Republican senators to represent them, and if they appoint a Liberal Justice than they will be working directly against the policies and ideologies that got them chosen in the first place.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Judge Garland is more than qualified to at least be treated with a modicum of respect. This is downright shameful to continue to treat him as he is being treated.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE