Senate Pros And Cons
The Senate not voting on Supreme Court Nominee
Neutral:
Adler, Jonathan. “The Erroneous argument the senate has a ‘constitutional duty’ to consider a supreme court nominee.” The Washington Post TheWashingtonPost.com. 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
In Jonathan Adler’s article “The erroneous argument the senate has a ‘constitutional duty’ to consider a supreme court nominee” he gives insight into both sides of the argument whether or not the senate should go ahead and vote for supreme court nominee Merrick Garland. He states hoe the American constitution never states that the senate has to consider every presidential nominee. Adler does state how the Alliance of Justice says that it is the senate’s constitutional obligation to vote and hold a hearing for the nominee. He says that the senate is allowed to refuse to act on a nomination. But even though the senate is allowed to withhold there are still consequences and political risks if they continue to refuse the nominee.
Pro:
Ramsey, Michael. “Why the Senate Doesn’t Have to Act on Merrick Garland’s Nomination.” The Atlantic. TheAtlantic.com. 15 May 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
In Michael D. Ramsey’s article “Why the Senate Doesn’t …show more content…
Kende argues that by only having eight members on the supreme court when they go to vote on important topics soon the vote could end up a tie. He brings up how there is a federal law stating there should be nine members on the supreme court, so that the court can resolve controversial issues. Kende also brings up that the senate is nullifying one of the president’s constitutional powers by not voting and holding a hearing for President Obama’s nominee. He finally brings up how the senate doesn’t want to do this during an election year, but that numerous other nominees have been voted on during the election
Neutral:
Adler, Jonathan. “The Erroneous argument the senate has a ‘constitutional duty’ to consider a supreme court nominee.” The Washington Post TheWashingtonPost.com. 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
In Jonathan Adler’s article “The erroneous argument the senate has a ‘constitutional duty’ to consider a supreme court nominee” he gives insight into both sides of the argument whether or not the senate should go ahead and vote for supreme court nominee Merrick Garland. He states hoe the American constitution never states that the senate has to consider every presidential nominee. Adler does state how the Alliance of Justice says that it is the senate’s constitutional obligation to vote and hold a hearing for the nominee. He says that the senate is allowed to refuse to act on a nomination. But even though the senate is allowed to withhold there are still consequences and political risks if they continue to refuse the nominee.
Pro:
Ramsey, Michael. “Why the Senate Doesn’t Have to Act on Merrick Garland’s Nomination.” The Atlantic. TheAtlantic.com. 15 May 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
In Michael D. Ramsey’s article “Why the Senate Doesn’t …show more content…
Kende argues that by only having eight members on the supreme court when they go to vote on important topics soon the vote could end up a tie. He brings up how there is a federal law stating there should be nine members on the supreme court, so that the court can resolve controversial issues. Kende also brings up that the senate is nullifying one of the president’s constitutional powers by not voting and holding a hearing for President Obama’s nominee. He finally brings up how the senate doesn’t want to do this during an election year, but that numerous other nominees have been voted on during the election