With the Passing of JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, A VACANCY
OPENED UP ON THE NINE MEMBER COURT. However, as it
happened Several Times during his TENURE AS PRESIDENT, BARACK
OBAMA FACED REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION THAT CARED LITTLE
FOR FACTUAL DATA, OR THE SWORN DUTY THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
This, of course, doesn't include the POSSIBLE DAMAGE THAT COULD
BE CAUSED BY HAVING A SUPREME COURT THAT IS NOT ABLE TO
PERFORM ITS FUNCTION ADEQUATELY.
So, in the INTEREST OF FINDING THE TRUTH IN THE MATTER, LET US
TURN TO THE BODY OF DOCUMENT, AND READ WHAT IT HAS TO SAY.
BY DOING THIS, WE MAY FIND AN ANSWER THAT WOULD HAVE ENDED
THE CONTROVERSY MANY MONTHS AGO. ( IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
HAD THE COURAGE TO LOOK AT THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AND FIND A WAY
TO COMPEL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO FULFILL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
Consider the Following, TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT:
Article II, Section 2,
"... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
IGNORING THE CONTROVERSY, WHAT CAN WE REASONABLY
INFER FROM THIS PASSAGE?
See PART 2.