Dick Durbin: “several weeks ago, the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the Supreme Court…”

“several weeks ago, the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the Supreme Court, which now has only eight Justices. It called into question the constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States when such a vacancy exists and the constitutional responsibility of this Senate. This morning in the Washington Post, there was speculation about six possible nominees the President could send to the Senate. It was speculation in the paper, and we don't know if any one of those would actually be the nominee suggested by the President, but it is very obvious--and having spoken with the President personally on this issue, I know he is carefully weighing the options. Why will the President move forward on this nomination? Because the Constitution requires it. In article II, section 2, it says the President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court--shall; not may, shall appoint--and the Senate shall perform its advice and consent duties with respect to that nomination. So there are two constitutional responsibilities: for the President to suggest a nominee and for the Senate to act on that nominee. There have been instances in American history where argument could be made that that constitutional responsibility should be ignored or at least delayed. One that comes to mind dates back to 1942. On October 3, 1942, a vacancy arose on the Supreme Court of the United States.…”