Re: Supreme Court continued

--- toma19@charter.net wrote:

> There is however, a general 'check' that the
> Executive and Legislative branches have on the
> Judicial branch, which is the crux of this article:
> The Constitution provides that BOTH the Executive
> and Legislative branches must be involved in the
> selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
>
> If we could strip away all the rhetoric that
> currently surrounds the filling of federal judicial
> vacancies, it is easy to see how our forefathers
> once again hit the nail on its head with the
> process. In fact, the following quote from Article
> II, sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution is pretty
> clear--especially when applied in conjunction with
> the background and purpose of the principles of
> checks and balances discussed above: "[The
> President]... shall nominate, and by and with the
> advice and consent of the senate, shall
> appoint...judges of the supreme court...." Isn't
> that a lot more simple than what we are hearing from
> the politicians and their respective support groups?
>
>
> So, the first myth that should disappear is the idea
> that the President should be able to pick whomever
> he wants to fill Justice O'Connor's vacant seat.
> The constitution clearly does not provide for that;
> and it certainly would violate the doctrine of
> checks and balances. Myth #2 is the argument
> proferred by many Republicans is that the President
> is not obligated to consult with the Senate prior to
> nominating his choice (and note the wording: The
> President shall 'nominate'--not select--but nominate
> a candidate). Any other interpretation of that
> section is most likely from some adult who was 'left
> behind' when he or she was being educated.
>