Article III of the Constitution has no requirement for the number of judges that must be placed on the court. There is no requirement that there by an uneven number of judges. Nine justices on the Supreme Court is not a Constitutional mandate. It is not even a Constitutional suggestion. Consequently, there is no Constitutional vacancy on the Supreme Court that must be filled.
In Article II the executive is given 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. It is required that the executive seek the advice of the Senate in the nomination process and then the Senate give its consent before a nominee is confirmed. Nowhere in the Constitution is a different process or a mandatory process outlined. The Senate is not required to act. The Progressives are insisting a vacancy exists and the Senate is not doing its constitutional duty because they want to make another political appointment to the Court similar Ginsburg.
There reasoning is as follows:
The stakes were high in United States v. Texas, in which 26 states sued the federal government over the Obama administration’s executive actions to improve immigration enforcement by providing temporary protection from deportation for qualifying residents. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—one of the most conservative courts in America—blocked the programs from going into effect across the nation until the case is resolved, leaving millions of families in limbo.
The courts have declared that Obama did not have the authority to rewrite the law.
In an unsigned, unanimous opinion in May, the Court kicked Zubik v. Burwell back to the lower courts for further proceedings—without any ruling on the merits. Zubik consolidated seven lawsuits by religiously affiliated nonprofits objecting to the Affordable Care Act’s, or ACA’s, accommodation for the contraception coverage mandate. The ACA allows employers with a religious objection to contraceptives that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to submit a form or letter to the government stating their objection. A third-party insurer then pays for and administers the contraception coverage. And while the organizations neither fund nor administer the contraception coverage themselves, they claim that merely filling out a form substantially burdens their religious liberty.
Currently the First Amendment is being upheld; that part that protects our right to practice the religion of our choosing and not the State sanctioned religion of Secularism.
The Progressives have found a great political ally in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s opinions are now considered to be the law of the land. The Supreme Court has assumed the role of being the final arbiter of all issues, including social issues. When the Progressives are unable to pass a law through the Constitutional directed channels, they have resorted to having their position become the accepted law of the land through the UN-constitutional use of the courts. Consequently, the government is no longer comprised of three co-equal branches of government. We now have a tired government with the Supreme Court having ultimate power. The Senate is acting within its Constitutional powers, despite the Progressive outcry. The power of Advice and Consent by the Legislative Branch of government the power referred to as “checks and balance.”