FEATURE ARTICLES. LOOKING AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: APPOINTING A NEW MEMBER, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY? PT 1.

With the Passing of JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, A VACANCY

OPENED UP ON THE NINE MEMBER COURT. However, as it

happened Several Times during his TENURE AS PRESIDENT, BARACK

OBAMA FACED REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION THAT CARED LITTLE

FOR FACTUAL DATA, OR THE SWORN DUTY THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD 

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. 

This, of course, doesn't include the POSSIBLE DAMAGE THAT COULD

BE CAUSED BY HAVING A SUPREME COURT THAT IS NOT ABLE TO

PERFORM ITS FUNCTION ADEQUATELY.

So, in the INTEREST OF FINDING THE TRUTH IN THE MATTER, LET US

TURN TO THE BODY OF DOCUMENT, AND READ WHAT IT HAS TO SAY.

BY DOING THIS, WE MAY FIND AN ANSWER THAT WOULD HAVE ENDED

THE CONTROVERSY MANY MONTHS AGO. ( IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

HAD THE COURAGE TO LOOK AT THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AND FIND A WAY 

TO COMPEL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO FULFILL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL

DUTIES).

Consider the Following, TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT:

Article II, Section 2,

"... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

IGNORING THE CONTROVERSY, WHAT CAN WE REASONABLY

INFER FROM THIS PASSAGE?

See PART 2.