Senate should follow precedent of Scalia vote
Regarding Sen. Mark Kirk’s opinion piece in the Sun- Times (“Scalia replacement must ‘ bridge differences,’” Feb. 22), Republicans and Democrats in the U. S. Senate unanimously approved the appointment of President Ronald Reagan’s appointee, Antonin Scalia, on Sept. 17, 1986. Justice Scalia passed all the tests and was an unapologetic conservative, which he did not attempt to hide throughout the appointment process. The American people expect the same today with President Barack Obama’s appointment, no more, no less.
Kirk wrote: “A partisan or extreme nominee would not be prudent.”
The Constitution clearly states the president appoints and Congress consents. The Constitution in no way whatsoever proclaims any of this process to be politically partisan in nature. As such, it is not relevant if the president chooses a liberal, moderate or conservative nominee. And the Republican majority in Congress ( at this time) has no business deciding whether to approve an appointment by the president to the Supreme Court based on the appointee’s political views. The entire process has nothing to do with this issue. The Constitution calls for Congress to approve a nominee based upon qualifications, not the political party affiliation or political beliefs of the nominee. Otherwise, Scalia would never have been unanimously approved by Congress. Now there is an actual ( and generational) precedent for Congress to follow. Mark Ryan, Orland Hills