“We need to do our job,” said Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the chamber’s longest-serving current member. “The Senate does not play a rubber stamp,” said Orrin Hatch, the Senate’s most senior Republican and a Judiciary Committee member. At issue is the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, put forward by President Barack Obama to succeed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. VOA reported that the Republicans said the seat should remain vacant until a new president is sworn in next year. “Conducting a heated, divisive confirmation fight in the middle of an ugly presidential election – and that certainly describes our presidential election season that is well under way – would do more harm than good,” Hatch said Tuesday at a forum on Capitol Hill “Of course, we’ve had numerous, numerous Supreme Court nominees confirmed in an election year,” Leahy countered moments later. The partisan tug-of-war over the Garland nomination has sparked fierce debate over precisely what is – and is not – required under the Constitution. America’s founding document states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court”. “The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice and consent, but does not specify how the Senate ought to exercise that power,” Hatch said. “Claims that the Constitution dictates when and how the confirmation process must occur – immediate committee hearings or timely floor votes – are false.” “What would be historic is to deny Judge Garland a public hearing and a vote,” Leahy responded. “The Senate has considered controversial nominees. But in every one of those instances, the nominee received a public hearing and a vote,” Leahy added.]]>