But, if we have a devotion to the Constitution, then we must recognize that it is the Constitution itself which prescribes the authority and process for nominations to the Court.
On the one hand, we claim this great devotion to it and to a highly-qualified new justice who will interpret and abide by its provisions. On the other hand, many of us ignore its prescribed prescription and process for selection of justices, preferring to pretend that the Constitution (which we may not understand) does not give citizens a role in assisting the Executive (President) in the actual naming of nominees to be considered by the Senate.
Federalist No. 76 explained very carefully for citizens the Framers' reasoning when it came to making the President the sole authority for appointing justices, with approval of the Senate. They understood human nature, and they understood politics, and they deliberately chose not to include us in the process. To the contrary, they explained very carefully why persons with special party interests should not be able to exert their pressures in the process.
It is the President who is putting his role in history on the line. Like America's Founders, his concern must be with how future generations will judge his decision--not how a fickle 'base' regards him now. Posterity will either judge of him that he furthered the cause of liberty with this nomination or that he did not.
If today's "conservatives" (whatever we may interpret that term to mean) truly want our Constitution to be honored and preserved, then we should be willing to live by its prescribed processes ourselves.
Else, we destroy our own credibility!
That makes entirely too much sense. Good job.
If we have a devotion to the Constitution we would be manning the ramparts for Bush's impeachment on the border issue alone. Article IV, Section 4 and the oath he swore to uphold and defend it.
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
Excellent points which I am sure will be met with well deserved scorn. Imagine the timerity of lecturing a Lynch Mob on fine points of political theory. You should be ashamed.