Appoint a Justice – Don’t Appoint One – What’s the Hurry?

The upcoming presidential election is being hailed as the most important in our lifetimes – possibly in the history of this nation.

We always hear this type of thing every election cycle. This time, however, the claim is absolute due to the recent passing of Justice Scalia and the subsequent tipping point in the balance of power of the Supreme Court.

So I agree with those who claim that we will lose our country – we lose our Constitutional rights and liberties should just one more liberal justice be appointed. For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate leadership not even allow hearings, much less a vote, on whomever Obama nominates.

Trending: 40-Year Campaign to Normalize “Pedophilia Love” with 10 year-olds is Working

The Senate leadership must understand that literally anything can happen should they allow an Obama nominee to come to a vote. There are simply too many spineless Republican Senators to take that chance. Short of an Article V Conventions of States, there would be no correcting the wrong outcome.

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Many have pointed to the history of lame-duck appointments, giving deference to the next Executive – that it hasn’t been done in many decades. But historical precedent aside, Obama has every right under the Constitution to nominate someone – anyone – to the court. The interesting thing is that, if one reads Article II, Section 2, clause 2, the founders clearly did not make a fuss over the process. It was not some Earth-shattering event, but merely included in the several duties of the President.

It reads: “He [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 are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:…”

Nowhere does it even imply that the Senate is obligated to act in a timely fashion, and it certainly says nothing of deference to the office of the President to grant him any appointee he wishes. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

The Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention, esteemed attorney James Wilson, knew a thing or two about our nation’s founding, as he was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, twice elected to the Continental Congress and one of the original Supreme Court justices appointed by President George Washington. One of only six, nominated by Washington in 1789, I might add. You mean the founders weren’t hell-bent on nine Justices? How could the country ever survive with less? Somehow, they managed to get by.

At the Constitutional Convention, Wilson argued that “a principal reason for unity in the Executive was that officers might be appointed by a single, responsible person,” thus avoiding “intrigue, partiality, and concealment.” At the same time, complete presidential control over appointments could allow a president to create offices and fill them with his favorites—the very definition of “corruption.” Sound familiar? In other words, it gives neither the president nor the Senate singular authority over appointments to the Court.

Many don’t realize that Wilson’s position, the position adopted by the Convention, was actually a compromise. The original position presented at the Convention was that of the Virginia Plan, not by Wilson, “that the National Judiciary be chosen by the National Legislature.” The legislature would both nominate and then consent to its own choice.

Yet, at no time during the Convention did any of the delegates bring forth the notion of deadlines. Unlike today, the founders didn’t feel the need to hurry through the decision making process in order to “get things done.” They concentrated on getting things right rather than expedience.

Once again, our present day Executive and Legislature can and should look back to the men who were a lot smarter and more deliberative than they for the foundation of their decisions.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous COINTELPRO, False Flags, and a Patriot Down
Next DC Circuit Court Reverses Decision to Seal Records of Criminal Fast and Furious Operation

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.