Should the President appoint a Supreme Court justice in his last term?

The answer is simple. Of course, he should. Don’t be ridiculous. US Social Conservatives (SCs) are demanding that President Obama not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court because he is in the last year of his term of office.

Their argument may actually be recognisable to the UK voters. In a nutshell, SC’s are arguing that the President’s choice will not be valid because he can appoint someone who is then not subject to the public’s approval. Basically, he can appoint someone, leave office and leave the country to pick up the pieces of this person's decisions.

No matter which way one slices that argument it will ALWAYS fall on its face. First, the President and the Congress have a constitutional duty to make nominations and have confirmation hearings. (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2) If both groups do not do this, they are not fulfilling the oath they took when all parties to their respective offices.

Every successful nominee to the Supreme Court will out last their nominating President's term in office. That’s why it's so important to put forth a nomination. The President’s appointment is meant to be part of his legacy which is why we have Justice’s like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and even the late Antonin Scalia. All conservative judges who were appointed by conservative Presidents.

Recently a Facebook "friend" of mine posted a story implying that Obama was a hypocrite because he participated in a filibuster against Samuel Alito. What he and other conservatives refuse to recognise is that the Dems didn’t demand that President GW Bush not make any appointments because they would like. What they did was within the rules and rights of senators. What SCs are offering is to change to rules until they think they can win. As John Boehner said, "this isn’t a Parliamentary system.” The rules are there for responsible legislators. Not wannabe MPs in a Parliamentary system, particularly the one in Westminster where the rules can be changed without much fuss whatsoever. (See 20 percent cut to opposition funding or EVEL).

The opposition parties in the UK do not have the power to challenge the rule changes and the majority party can arrange a system in where their rule is established for a long time.

Social Conservatives exemplify the immaturity associated with privilege. This gambit by the SCs is just one of the many ways that the SCs and Republicans have attempted to get their way in the past eight years.

Since Obama has come to office they have attempted to prevent/ get rid of Obamacare dozens of times , prevent minorities from voting and they have TWICE shutdown the US Government threatening the livelihoods of tens of thousands for purely, political reasons.

In political terms, this is the equivalent of stamping your feet on the ground and having a proper tantrum.

So here we are again, Social Conservatives are stamping their feet to attempt to get their way but I doubt that those calling for "no appointment" could even name a nominee that they would deem worthy enough to get a confirmation.

Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought. If the President went along with the SCs plans to not nominate a Supreme Court justice. That would effectively hobble the court until the middle of 2017.

Think about it.

Obama’s term ends on January 20, 2017, so that’s a little over 11 months from now. Even if the new President nominates someone on day one, that means that the Senate would not be able to deal with the nomination until it sat again. Even if they are sitting that same week, the average time for Supreme Court nomination is between one and four months in the modern era.

This would put any conformation between February 20, 2017 and May 20, 2017. This also relies on a Senate that will not reject the nomination as is their right.

Either way, under social conservative plans the highest court in the land could be hobbled for upwards of 15 months for strictly political reasons. Important cases to American society would sit in limbo because the Social Conservatives wanted to stamp their feet. To allow that to happen would be a dereliction of duty and a violation of the constitution that SCs profess to love so much.

CMS