Democrats in their own words: "Constitutional obligation to consent or not to consent"

Washington, DC- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield demanded an up or down vote on Abe Fortas’ nomination to the Supreme Court in 1968 – a nomination that did not enjoy majority support. His words are instructive for modern Democrats, who want to usurp the President’s constitutional authority to nominate judges. On the Senate floor, Majority Leader Mansfield said the following:

“I reiterate we have a Constitutional obligation to consent or not to consent to this nomination. We may evade that obligation but we cannot deny it. As for any post, the question which must be faced is simply: Is the man qualified for the appointed position? That is the only question. It cannot be hedged, hemmed or hawed. There is one question: shall we consent to this Presidential appointment? A Senator or group of Senators may frustrate the Senate indefinitely in the exercise of its constitutional obligation with respect to this question. In so doing, they presume great personal privilege at the expense of the responsibilities of the Senate as a whole, and at the expense of the constitutional structure of the Federal government.”

Senator Mansfield understood that the Senate’s job is to confirm whether or not potential juror is a capable and competent juror, instead of imposing a series of litmus tests to further the Left’s goal of creating a court that will impose the liberal agenda by judicial fiat.