Another Republican Senate Would Destroy the Constitution

Threatening to undermine the separation of powers that is fundamental to our free society, John McCain says that a Republican Senate would not confirm any potential Supreme Court Justices nominated by Hillary Clinton.

This obstreperous partisanship is unprecedented in American history.

Responsible politicians know that a complete court is fundamental to the review process necessary to ensure that laws are being carried out in a fair and just manner.

While past Senators may have occasionally grumbled about nominees, and even rejected some, at no time has it been suggested that a Senate may reject all candidates without review on a purely partisan basis.

Just to be clear, unlike the House, the Senate doesn't fairly represent the US population. States that have more jackrabbits than humans have the same Senate vote as states with tens of millions of humans.

This gives every voting resident of Wyoming 65 times more power in the Senate than a resident of California.

The Senate is the least representative part of our federal government.

That's OK, though, because the SCOTUS selection process has two parts, and the first is nomination by the president. The president has been popularly elected, indirectly, through the electoral college, which grants votes based on actual population.

This has proven to be a fair system.

While presidents do tend to nominate justices with similar political leanings, once appointed the Justices are only beholden to the Constitution.

That, specifically, is why they are not elected: SCOTUS is meant to be above and beyond the often-dirty election process.

Because of the lifetime appointments, the Court always has sitting Justices that have been nominated by both conservative and liberal presidents. This provides perspectives that represent all Americans. Sometimes the Court drifts left in its decisions, and sometimes it drifts right, but that is how we keep a balanced interpretation on our Constitution and our law.

It's just not right for the Senate, which does not reflect a fair representation of the US population as a whole, to use their approval power to prevent a full and balanced federal Supreme Court.

Why should a resident of North Dakota get more say in this than a resident of Texas?

Up until the current Senate, it has always been understood that the Senate would give a fair hearing to nominees, and then approve most of them.

Sadly, the current Senators have made the decision to undermine our Constitution by undermining the powers granted to the president, as well as the powers granted to the Judiciary.

While McCain's people tried to backtrack later, the cat is out of the bag now: The only way to keep our Supreme Court complete and doing its job is to elect a Democratic majority for Senate.

All reliable polls suggest that in a fair election Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

When you, the majority of American voters, vote for Clinton, be sure to vote Democratic for Senate, as well.

It is the only way to avoid a Senate attack on our Constitution.

It is the only way to keep America great.