How is he not ‘protecting the will of the American people’ and ‘subverting it’?
Griffin Hatten
1

As I noted in the article and you noted in your response, members of the U.S. Senate are not obligated to vote for a particular nominee. However, I believe they are obligated to at least consider the president’s judicial nominations. The Senate cannot truly provide advice and consent when they refuse to meet with a nominee, refuse to hold a hearing for a nominee, and refuse to allow an up or down vote? If the Senate has the right to not give any consideration for any of the president’s nominees, then the entire judiciary is at risk and the public suffers significantly by not have recourse to litigate critical issues. The fact is the will of the American people was expressed in 2012 when Barack Obama won a new term by a wide margin. Chuck Grassley just doesn’t like the outcome (wait, isn’t that the argument conservatives always make against activist judges?). He’s not achieving his stated goal of “protecting the will of the American people.” He’s denying the results of the 2012 election and denying the president his legitimate right to have judicial nominees considered.