Would letter writers like Colby Rymes (Monitor letters, April 5) who want “the people” to weigh in on Supreme Court nominees please refer us to the Constitutional provision that spells out voter responsibilities in appointing federal justices?
I’ve searched for this provision in vain. Senatorial responsibilities are another matter.
What is Sen. Ayotte’s issue here? We’re talking about a hearing, not an appointment. The Constitution requires the Senate to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees; it doesn’t require confirmation. Not only can senators vote nominees down, they have. Remember Abe Fortas?
Sen. Ayotte is perfectly free to reject Merrick Garland after a hearing. Granted, such rejections are rare; overall, the Senate has confirmed Supreme Court nominees roughly 90 percent of the time – including during election years.
Readers might recall their U.S. history. George Washington appointed two justices not long before leaving office. The Senate at the time was composed largely of those who framed the Constitution, yet nobody objected, demanding that Washington leave his successor, John Adams, to make appointments so “the people” could have a voice.
Then we have John Adams, still in office after his landslide defeat by Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Adams nominated John Marshall as Chief Justice mere weeks before Jefferson’s inauguration. Yet Jefferson never raised a peep about Adams’s appointment, despite his loathing for the nominee.
Senate Republicans have skated onto untested ice in refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland. Worse, they risk falling through that ice in this unprecedented refusal to hold hearings – and taking justice with them.
JANE J. HUNT
Concord