"Put simply, the framers did not write a document that would leave it up to the people to decide who will be the next Supreme Court Justice. On purpose."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I love the actions of McConnell when he said the Senate is abiding by the Biden Rule---the first time in 7 1/2 years McConnell cares about what our Vice President said. These guys are funny, dangerous but funny
*  Their job is to advise and consent. Their job is to VOTE up or down. It is NOT their job to delay, delay, delay.!
*  No more whitewing wackos, that's why the country is stuck in neutral. This country was founded with the principal of compromise at its core but whitewing wackos have a ['it's my way or the highway' mentality. sit back guys, you're gonna love President Clinton. Eight more years of moving forward. 
*  There are few Republicans in office who care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, much less doing their job. That should have been clear years ago.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ralph Strangis: On the SCOTUS dilemma, the Constitution tells you what to do. Namely, your job.
By Ralph Strangis, March 17, 2016

Maybe I’m confused. Maybe I don’t understand what I’ve just read for my American Government class: Article 2 of the United States Constitution. Maybe I don’t have the foggiest notion of what the founding fathers had in mind.

All those things are possible.

I wouldn’t be alone. The professor put up a slide a few weeks ago on a poll of the American people that went like this. Something like 90 percent of them said that understanding the basics on the Constitution was essential for every citizen. Most of them said that they had basic understanding of the Constitution.

But in the end, only 6 percent could answer 10 basic questions about the Constitution.

Ok, so it’s a poll. Who knows who these people are, or what questions they were asked?

You probably have a better working knowledge than most. And I’m positive that people who do it for a living — you know, members of Congress — certainly understand it. And because they’re, you know, elected to represent our interests and act with — what’s the word? — integrity, and so on, they wouldn’t intentionally make misleading or false statements regarding what the rules are and how they’re supposed to be applied. Right?

The way I get it, the thing that pops out at a guy when he reads about the beginnings of this country is that the framers were very suspicious of two things: too much power in the hands of a meddling Federal Government and the occasional emotional whim of the people.

To combat these things, they created a system of checks and balances. They established three branches of government, each possessing a sword and a shield. And they mandated that officials (the chief executive and the legislature) were to be elected by the people. And that, once elected, those officials would have constitutional duties to perform and obligations to fulfill.

They settled on a system that was not a “direct democracy” at the federal level. That is to say, the people do not vote for laws but for lawmakers. The people don’t negotiate or sign peace treaties or make or confirm appointments, but elect the people who do.

Put simply, the framers did not write a document that would leave it up to the people to decide who will be the next Supreme Court Justice. On purpose.

Article 2 (Section 2, Paragraph 2) of the United States Constitution:

“[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments herein are not otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

I seem to be missing the part where it says:

“Unless, in the final year of the president’s tenure, where the appointment is so significant, the people shall have a voice and consider at least in some measure in their deliberations with respect to voting for the next president (and any next senators), that (those) candidate’s capacities for and judgment regarding the next appointment for a Supreme Court Justice …”

Again, maybe I’m confused, but “The President” to me means, you know, The President. “The Senate” means, you know, The Senate. “We The People” elected “The President” and “The Senate,” and the duty is on them.

Now, if you’re a senator and you don’t like it, it seems to me there is a lot of wiggle room in the “advise and consent” portion of Article 2. Grab onto that one. At least make it look good. You know, go through the motions, drag it out, get up to the microphones and talk about this one being so important that we don’t want to rush it and that we want to give the matter full and thoughtful consideration. Say that the vacancy created by the death of a strict Constitutionalist demands the highest level of scrutiny and care.

But to argue that this should be left up to the people? The way it was set up is to avoid exactly that. This job isn’t ours, it’s yours. And if we don’t like the job you’re doing on the things we elected you to do, a remedy is spelled out in fairly plain language in the United States Constitution — we’ll elect somebody else when the time comes.
...................................................................................................................................................................