He shall

  Well I have to say there is some good coming from all this political banter. A lot more people are actually reading the constitution. I admit I'm one of them. I have read more of that document over the last year than I ever did in the past. Today we are concerned with Article 2 Section 2 which gives the President the authority to nominate the Justices for the Supreme court. It is actually quite clear, it says "he shall nominate " and later in the sentence, "judges" of the supreme court. It doesn't give a timeline for that to happen. That is up to the president to decide, you know, as chief executive. That section also includes other powers at his disposal one being filling vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions that expire at the end of the next session. Imagine the uproar if he actually did that? But my point is simply that people are now reading the actual document. And like lawyers everywhere they are interpreting what it means. Back in March of 2016 then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy of Antonin Scalia. The senate refused to vote of that nomination, a move within their rights as well. The constitution does not specify when the confirmation hearings must take place, no timeline in there. Now President Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar, that is what was advertised anyway. He was an attorney. He does have a degree from Harvard. He is certainly far more versed in law than I am, I'll give him that. He obviously didn't have any issue with nominating a justice to the supreme court during his lame duck period. Didn't hear him saying, we should wait until after the election. So, in that I would would have to concur counselor. The constitution is clear, the President shall nominate a judge to the supreme court whenever a vacancy occurs on that court. I'd go a little further saying it being the highest court in the land that vacancy should be filled as soon as possible. The confirmation process can take months, as we are all well aware, therefore the sooner we get started the better. That is to say, better for the people, it shouldn't be delayed until it is politically expedient, or advantageous to any one party. The court is blind! The court does not form their opinions based on political ideology, their decision are founded upon a single document. The Constitution of the United States of America. That is the supreme law of the land. In this instance what does that document say? It says; the president shall with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint supreme court judges. Seems clear enough. 

 Now we are hearing that the President should not nominate anyone until after the next election. The thinking being, let the people decide. But will there be a line item vote on the ballot proposing just what person is nominated to the court? No, you get to vote for the president and that president gets to choose who he or she will nominate. If we were to use that logic, every time the President where to make an appointment or nomination we should, let the people decide, by waiting until the next election. But that is only being proposed in this instance because of what? Is it for the good of the people, or is it good for the party in power? The later is the answer in the real world. The bottom line is this, the President, by the authority granted to him in the Constitution has the duty to nominate a justice. It's part of the job. As the "boss" he or she also gets to decide when to do that. When he was elected the people spoke. It was at that point that the President, after having been inaugurated and taken the oath of office, was granted that power. It doesn't end until he leaves office and is replaced with another person. Being President is being the President until the day you are replaced. On his final days in office then President Obama issued three hundred and thirty pardons! Shouldn't he have waited until after the election? I mean, let the people decide? In this same section, section two, it clearly says the President can grant pardons and reprieves for crimes against the United States, except for impeachment. Of course the thing is. once he isn't the President he doesn't have that authority anymore. For that reason he has to do it right away, if that is what he wishes. Same thing with nominees to the supreme court. If the president wants to nominate a specific individual they can only do that as president, that's how it works. The constitution says , "he shall. " I'm no lawyer but to me he shall is the same thing as saying he will,  as in you don't have a choice about that. You shall! No where in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land does it say, the president shall wait to do anything. It does say he acts with the advice and consent of the Senate. So, send up that nomination, it's your job Mr. President. Following that, it is up to the Senate to either issue their consent or dissent. That's how it works.