The simple answer is that neither side likely enjoys a monopoly in claiming faithful adherence to the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Article II, Section 2, Cl. 2<\/strong>, of the U.S. Constitution, in pertinent part says simply:\u00a0\u201cHe<\/em>\u00a0[the President]<\/em>\u00a0shall have Power\u2026by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate\u2026to appoint\u2026Judges of the supreme court\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The Constitution nowhere mandates any time frame for either undertaking, nor has the Supreme Court ever interposed an imputation as to a \u2018reasonable time\u2019 for such happenings by either the Executive or the Senate to assure comportment with this Article.<\/p>\n With reference to somehow satisfying\u00a0\u201cthe will of the American people\u201d,\u00a0<\/em>both sides may unknowingly be correct, even though for the wrongly enunciated reason.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Article I, Section 3<\/strong>\u00a0originally mandated that\u00a0\u201cThe Senate of the United States shall be \u2026chosen by the Legislature [of each state]\u201d. \u00a0<\/em>As such, the two Senators representing each state were\u00a0not\u00a0<\/u>selected by the voters of that state, and as such, the composition of the Senate could hardly have reflected the\u00a0\u201cwill of the people\u201d<\/em>, but rather the result of political machinations by state legislators. However, this circumstance changed in 1913, when\u00a0<\/strong>Amendment XVII\u00a0<\/strong>was ratified, thereafter requiring that Senators indeed reflect the will of the American people by mandating their election by direct vote of the citizenry in each state.<\/p>\n History reveals that both Democratic and Republican controlled Senates have sought to advantage their constituency in the last year of a presidential term by delaying or preventing hearings and Senate voting, respectively, as to a Supreme Court nominee. This nation has, indeed, \u201cseen this movie before\u201d, except that there is always the same ending in each instance; namely ultimate compliance with Article II<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The genius of our Founding Fathers in creating intentional<\/u> legal tension as amongst the Executive, Legislative , and Judicial branches by establishing these three co-equal<\/u> branches of government, is reflected by this current transient brouhaha.<\/p>\n Undoubtedly, the acknowledged legal discomfiture and uncertainty resulting from ongoing Supreme Court tie vote \u2018deadlocks\u2019 will remain fodder for criticism. However, one may take comfort that there is hardly a threat to the continuum of the place in our Constitution enjoyed by the Supreme Court as a separate equal branch of our Republic\u2019s underpinnings.<\/p>\n \u201cThis too shall pass\u201d.<\/p>\n Irving Labovitz, J.D.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"labovitz\"](\"http:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2015\/11\/labovitz.jpg\")
<\/a>Irving Labovitz, J.D.<\/strong>, is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts and holds a Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law. He is admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as multiple federal appellate and trial courts. His experience includes: Federal Trade Commission legal staff in Washington, D.C., military federal prosecutor, Adjunct Professor of Business Law at Western New England Law School and FAU, attorney for major banks in concentrations of bankruptcy and secured lending, and contract counsel for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the liquidation of failed banks. He has authored many scholarly law review articles and has been a national lecturer for the American Bar Association and Commercial Law League of America. He is presently general counsel for a large corporation.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"