As we’ve seen in current politics today, the election of Supreme Court Justices can be an incredibly frustrating process. Under the Constitution, the President of the United States is to nominate a judge, to fill a vacancy, and the Senate is to accept or deny that nomination to the court. Although this process is outlined in the Constitution, the election of a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia has been hindered by the Senate’s refusal to approve or decline President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland. The Senate has decided to not answer the President’s nomination and wait for a new president to be elected, even though Justice Scalia passed away under the Obama Administration. To amend the Constitution of the United States, that would protect the citizens from bias Supreme Court Justice elections, a new amendment would mandate that a new Justice can only be appointed and accepted by the …show more content…
Therefore, the Senate can stall the process until a new president is elected, vice versa, the President could wait until the Senate has been reelected to nominate a judge for the position. The problem with this is that, by stalling and waiting for new members to take office the branches are not using the checks and balances system. The basis for the right to wait is the branches question what their constitutional duty is, and suppose that the new changing government should be have the decision in electing Justices. The true conflict with this is that either branch can wait for a majority that favors their own agenda they are consequently making a constitutional duty into a partisan process. This is not what the checks and balances system was created to do. Neither branch should have to power or choice in stalling procedures to move their own ideology forward into such a small and decisive branch of