On February 16th 2016, The Nation published the article, “Yes, President Obama Can Still Nominate a Supreme Court Justice” authored by John Nichols. Nichols believes that the constitution does not limit any president serving a final term in office from appointing justices. He believes that the Republican candidates are misinformed by thinking that the president does not have the authority to carry out this mandate of nominating justices in the election year. Nichols informs that the justices can be confirmed in the election years and by nominating, the president would have fulfilled the responsibilities of his office per the constitution (par. 4). The constitution bestows the responsibility of appointing justices on the president in conjunction with the senate as a single party. None of the two has to do it solely without the consent and app
...roval of the other. The members of the senate claim that president Obama does not have to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court since the country is divided ideologically. Nichols is trying to convince the readers that Republican candidates are supporting this claim by the senate on what the president should and should not do. Nichol concludes that justice nominees can be confirmed during election years. The conclusion draws a heated debate among members of senate and the presidential candidates. The article serves a convincing role in informing readers that justices can be nominated by a president serving a final term and confirmed during an election year.
The senate is opposed to the idea of the president nominating a justice in the final term in office. The motion has gained support from the Republican candidates who have made similar claim
and Nichols has done well to bring out cases of justices who were appointed in the previous years under similar circumstances. One memorable incident is where President George Bush nominated Justice Clarence Thomas in the fall of 1991 prior to presidential elections. ?Justice Clarence was more conservative than Justice Thurgood Marshall, the man whom he succeeded. In similar incident, President Ronald Reagan had nominated Justice Kennedy in 1987 and was confirmed in 1988. Reagan was also serving a final term and the elections were to be held in 1988, the same year the justice was confirmed. The republican candidates urged the senate to “delay delay delay” the process of appointing a new justice till a new president assumes the office. Ideally, they were asking the president to abandon his constitutional responsibility. For president Obama, he wanted to honour the institution that Justice Scalia devoted his life to and make it operate in the same it was envisioned in the constitution and the office responsibility of the president.
President Obama is ideally complying with his office responsibility although the senators are disregarding it. In particular, the author points out to senators ? Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz of their solemn rejection of Obama’s action and statement. In a debate moderated by John Dickerson of CBS News, the senators were on the wrong end of facts as they continued giving unconvincing facts regarding the constitution and president Ronald Reagan (par. 11). They claimed to honour the constitution as well as Ronald Reagan, a president who also appointed a judge in his final term and the year of election. It comes out as a complete surprise for the senators’
opposition to the quest by the president yet they hold the constitution and the former president, Ronald Reagan, in high regard. The constitution hands the president the power to nominate and appoint regardless of the term served. Thus, Nichols makes his point clear that the senate and Republican candidates are misinformed in their opposing debates.
The debates between the Republican Party members are non-founded as the article documents. For instance, Nichols informs that the constitution is not responsible for a two party system in the United States. As well, he documents that the president is right to oppose the claims of the senate. The president recognises that the responsibility he holds as well as that of the senate is much bigger than those of individual parties. In that respect, it makes sense for the author to disregard the claims of the senate. His point of view revolves around the blind arguments of the senate. He has managed to expose the vagueness of the claims made by the senate by supporting his claim in the article that a judge can be nominated in the election years by an incumbent president irrespective of the term served. The evidence drawn from the other justices appointed at similar circumstances demean the opposing views and claims of the senate members as well as the Republican candidates.
The opposing views and claims of the senate members and the Republican candidates are founded on the premise that a president cannot nominate or appoint a Supreme Court judge while serving a final term in the same year that elections are anticipated. Republican candidate Ben Carson and senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are particularly opposed
to the idea and have documented their views concerning the situation (par. 11). Nichols has rebutted those claims that a president cannot appoint justices in the final term and election year by referring to similar situations in the past where presidents in their last term nominated justices who were confirmed in the election years. The senate is basically trying to capitalize on the division that has emanated from the debate to their own interests. Their arguments and views are unfounded and only rest on their quest to tilt the power to one party. Anticipated rebuttal of the Nichols’s claim would be that he is one sided and uses the constitution and historical facts to support his claim.
The debate on the appointment of justice continues to rage on, more especially due the media interventions which sway opinions of the senate and those of the president to capture the mind of the citizens. Owing to the stated facts by the author, his claim is legitimate and effective in informing the audience of an innate desire of few political leaders and institution to corrupt the mind of citizens by capitalizing on the media attention accorded to this matter. The senate and the presidential candidates have their interests in making the justice seat vacant till after elections to have a justice who will favour either the Republicans or the Conservatives. Thus, they cannot stop at anything till the motion has gained popularity and possible implementation. Nichols has done well to cement his claim and support it with relevant facts and arguments although more authentic and diverse facts would have sufficed, rather than focussing on one piece of supporting evidence.
Thus, his writing is persuasive enough to the readers.
Work Cited
- http://www.thenation.com/article/yes-president-obama-can-still-nominate-a-supreme-court-justice/
