Posted July 7, 2005

     Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says, “…, and he (the President)shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court,”

     That’s it, as far as replacing Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, or any other member of the Supreme Court.  There aren’t any other words in the Constitution that cover these appointments.  To legal and political laypeople like us, they seem pretty clear.

     The President takes the first step.  He submits a nomination and the Senate exercises their “advice and consent” powers afterward.  Using compromise and a certain amount of wisdom, an acceptable appointment results.

     President Bush was well aware that he would likely be called upon to make at least one Supreme Court appointment during his second term.  As part of his campaign platform, he stated that he would appoint a Justice (or Justices) who would adhere to, and interpret, the Constitution.  He did not say he would appoint a “conservative” or a “strict constructionist” judge.  And he was reelected by a reasonably substantial majority.

     Naturally, Bush will consider the politics of any appointment he makes.  Every other President has.  But it’s getting tiresome listening to all of the thinly veiled threats from both “liberal” and “far-right” Senators.  Let the President do the job he was elected to do, then you do yours.  That goes double for local elected officials.

     We endured the 100+-day confirmation process of Clarence Thomas.  And one of the finest jurists in the last 50 years, Robert Bork, was “Borked” by the Senate.  Those proceedings were caused by “issue politics” at its Senatorial worst.

     Only the President can make Supreme Court appointments.  Senators should then render their “advice and consent” quickly and in accordance with historic Constitutional precedent.

    Email us your thoughts.