No hearing for Merrick Garland

Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:46PM

Merrick Garland was appointed to be on the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama. The question remains: should the Senate give him a hearing? I believe the answer to that question is no.

In my opinion, the Senate should wait until the next president. I am not alone in this idea. Mitch McConnell also agrees when he says “give the people a choice in filling this vacancy.” He believes that the new president, chosen by the people should get the honor of choosing the new justice for the Supreme Court.

Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado further exemplifies this point by saying “the Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established. That is why the next president of the United states should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court ... the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”

That said, the Republicans do not plan on voting for a hearing any time soon — but why? I believe that is partially because they want the American people to pick, but also because having Merrick Garland on the Justice panel would disrupt the balance of the panel.

As it stands, there are four Democrat justices and four Republican justices. Merrick Garland is a Democrat. Republicans do not want to vote for him because they do not want the panel to be swayed in the way of the Democrats, and I admit I agree with this mentality.

The Senate is facing strong opposition; there was a letter of support signed by 15 past presidents of the American Bar Association stating that there is no election year exception for the Senate and they should consider this nominee.

What these 15 past presidents fail to mention is that this is not the first time that the Senate has delayed on giving a nomination a hearing. Ronald Reagan went through this same struggle when he went to appoint Anthony Kennedy. He nominated Kennedy in late 1987 and it took until February 1988 for the Senate to confirm his choice.

This is, in the most basic terms, a waiting game. The democrats are impatiently wanting to get the Merrick appointed that way they can have the upper hand on the Supreme Court. The Republicans on the other hand, are trying there best to stall any and all possibility of a hearing from the Senate. I agree with the Republicans in that I personally do not want the Justice panel to be swayed in the way of the Democrats. I more so agree with letting the people decide, because this is America. We were founded on a democracy and therefore should uphold that.

Alex Dunn is a senior at Conant High School.