Letters: US Senate should confirm or reject Judge Garland

I am disappointed that our U.S. senators refuse to “advise and consent” to President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. I don’t believe the Constitution supports that decision.

The Republicans’ argument is so illogical that it makes them look like idiots. They want to give the American people a voice in choosing the next justice? Is not the electorate that chose Mr. Obama as our president, twice, the same electorate that will elect the next president? How will we have more say in January 2017 than we do now?

I suspect the argument is code for “we want a Republican president to select a Republican (conservative) nominee” and “we don’t want to give Obama anything.” If the next president is a Democrat, what will be the Senate’s new argument for delaying?

Judge Merrick Garland is well-known, well-liked and a moderate.

President Obama has done his job of selecting a great Supreme Court nominee. The Senate should do its job, and fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent, or reject, Judge Garland. Now.

This story was originally published March 23, 2016 at 1:29 PM.