Advertisement

Readers React: Vetting Supreme Court nominees -- not the nominator -- is the Senate’s job

President Obama announces Merrick Garland as his nominee to the United States Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House on March 16.

President Obama announces Merrick Garland as his nominee to the United States Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House on March 16.

(Michael Reynolds / EPA)
Share

To the editor: While the mechanics may be ambiguous — as your Op-Ed states, “Both sides are acting as if advice and consent is a rule, but instead it is a standard” — its purpose is clearly to vet the nominees. (“Is stonewalling legit?” Opinion, March 30)

Republicans’ nominee-blind process instead vets presidents. That vetting, under the Constitution, rests with voters; their choice is not subject to the Senate’s “advice and consent.”

The Senate may, through action or inaction, reject a particular nominee. But it may not reject the nominator.

Advertisement

No matter what reason Senate Republicans give — the approaching end of the president’s term, the hypocrisy of some Democrats, the court’s fragile balance — vetting the nominator is simply not the Senate’s job.

Ilya Shlyakhter, Cambridge, Mass.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Advertisement