Oct 1, 2020 3 min read

Abolish ‘general practices’ by Senate

In a response to a letter I wrote to Republican Pat Toomey, who represents Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate, I was informed that while the White House and Senate share equally the constitutional authority for filling a Supreme Court vacancy, “general practices” are followed when different situations exist. In 2016, the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties. The senator explained to me, “When power is divided during a presidential election year, the Senate’s general practice has been to leave open a Supreme Court vacancy so that the voters may speak and possibly resolve the disagreement created by the division.” He stated that this practice was supported by Senate Democrats.

Sen. Toomey felt that the 2016 Senate was following this “general practice” when it “exercised our constitutional prerogative not to fill the 2016 vacancy.” Now, in 2020, circumstances are different. The White House and Senate are controlled by the same party and a Supreme Court vacancy again needs to be filled during an election year. In this situation, Toomey told me that “the Senate’s historical practice has been to fill Supreme Court vacancies in these circumstances.” He went on to say that this practice makes perfect sense: “When divided government creates tension between the two organs responsible for filling a position on the Supreme Court, it is completely justifiable to leave open a vacancy until the voters have had a chance to speak.”

I believe that these types of partisan-guided policies need to be abolished. I am against “playing politics” when important decisions, such as filling Supreme Court vacancies, are at stake. Supreme Court justices have the great responsibility to uphold the written laws of our country – our Constitution. They take an oath to follow the letter of the law regardless of party or even religious beliefs. I believe that the people should always have the right to be heard when a Supreme Court vacancy needs filling during a presidential election year. To postpone or to not postpone making an appointment to benefit one party or another is wrong. The same standard should and must be followed every time the need arises in the above said situation. This eliminates any controversy or conflict of interest in the judicial appointment process. The White House and Senate should and must be models of integrity and justice for all to follow. The need to abolish this partisan practice exists and the voices of the American people need to be heard.

Karen Harris

Centerville Borough