Faparusi: SCOTUS nomiation 'a matter of the president's discretion'

Oct 15, 2020 at 07:00 am by Voice Wire

Independent Senate Candidate, Yomi "Fapas" Faparusi, provides his opinion on the nomination of Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett. 

Yomi Faparusi stated, "Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Appointment Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court.

Whether President Trump should have waited to nominate a replacement until after the election, due to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, is simply a matter of the president's discretion. One could argue that such a delay could be putting politics above the Constitution. That debate is settled now that we have a nominee, but the new bone of contention is whether Judge Barrett should be confirmed before the election because of several important cases coming up before the Court right after the elections.

The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett will begin today. The US Senate needs to rise above partisan politics and do its job of confirmation. Like most confirmation hearings in the last decade, we expect it to be a partisan spectacle - especially with the general belief that Judge Barrett, who is considered conservative, would be replacing an iconic liberal justice, the late Justice Ginsburg. This begs these questions- how do we know a nominee's ideology and do Americans really want a politician on the highest bench of the land?

By now, anyone paying attention to the SCOTUS hearing debate has read opinions on what is deemed Judge Barrett's ideology based on her decisions on the bench. So why is it important to know a nominee's view on issues like abortion? I argue that this endeavor is the root of the chaos that we have seen with these nomination hearings and I believe it is a practice that should be discouraged. Sadly, this flawed analysis gets carried to the senate whereby each side, more of the opposing side, attempts to ask questions about a nominee's political ideology instead of focusing on the nominee's judicial philosophy, how the nominee interprets the law.

Judge Barrett is expected to state the following about her judicial philosophy, "Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society ... But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try."

It seems some senators fail to realize that judges or justices should not make law and as Americans we do not need activists on the bench. This is an indictment of both Republicans and Democrats. This probing of a nominee's political ideology needs to stop and if senators want to change the law, do so in the Senate rather than seek a counterpart in the judicial branch of government. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they separated the three branches of government.

History has shown that predicting a SCOTUS nominee's ideology or how the justice would rule is not always accurate. Everyone has an ideology but any smart SCOTUS nominee has to be vague when asked those partisan questions. Furthermore, it appears Judge Barrett has the votes to be confirmed.

As such, the senators can spare Americans the political bickering and make this confirmation hearing an educational session on Judge Barrett's philosophy. A SCOTUS nominee's ideology is not important to interpret the law. Our senators need to steer clear of Judge Barrett's ideology."

For more information on the Fapas Senate campaign please visit fapas4senate.com.


Bull! Justice is the purpose of every court. While interpretation of the Constitution is a role of the SCOTUS, Justice is it's main reason for being.
or Register to post a comment