Constitution We the People.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (talk)) Details Source DMCA
Amidst all the frenzy of Trump's and Mitch McConnell's stratagem of rushing through the appointment of a Supreme Court justice of their choice before the November 3 election, there is an alternate path that would correct the ethical and legal controversies triggered by their actions. This matter was brought up in previous articles: "High Crime In The U.S.Senate" (OpEd Oct. 10, 2018) and "Public Enemy #2" (OpEd Dec. 23, 2019).
Let's go back to the decision by Mitch McConnell not to allow President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, to be brought up for confirmation by the senate. Obama had a clear constitutional power and duty to appoint a judge to that position, subject to senate approval. The constitution did not grant McConnell the authority to deny that power. The reasons he gave for refusing to allow the nomination to proceed place the senate's internal rules for procedures above the president's powers and duties granted by the constitution. His actions were clearly an obstruction of constitutionally authorized procedure and could be interpreted as a violation of the constitution, at least removing McConnell from his position in the senate, if not putting him in prison for sedition.
It is time to take legal action to rectify this violation of the constitution. The quickest way to settle the case legally would be to acknowledge the breach of constitutional procedure by restoring Merrick Garland to the top position in the queue to be confirmed as Supreme Court justice. Otherwise, under threat of legal action, the matter could be settled ethically by McConnell and other Republican senators honoring their prior pledges to defer Supreme Court confirmation hearings for the next administration - their rationale for blocking Merrick Garland's confirmation.