Posted on 02/16/2016 11:28:12 AM PST by Kaslin
It is a measure of the stature and the significance of Justice Antonin Scalia that, upon the news of his death at a hunting lodge in Texas, Washington was instantly caught up in an unseemly quarrel over who would succeed him.
But no one can replace Justice Scalia.
He was a giant among jurists. For a third of a century, he led the conservative wing of the high court, creating a new school of judicial thought called "originalism."
But originalism is not conservatism, which, in the judicial era that preceded Scalia, often meant court decisions that "conserved" the radical social revolution Earl Warren's court had imposed upon us.
Scalia believed in going back to the founding documents of the republic and discerning from them the original meaning and intent of the framers.
He would look at the purpose of the authors of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and post-Civil War amendments, and conclude that it was an absurdity to discover there, or read into them, a constitutional right to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex.
The words Scalia used to ridicule such nonsense did as much to discredit majority opinions as did his dissenting votes.
I remember being called into the office of White House Chief of Staff Don Regan, 30 years ago, to be informed that the judge whom Ronald Reagan would name to replace William Rehnquist, who had been named Chief Justice, would be U.S. Appellate Court Judge Antonin Scalia.
Regan was grinning at me as he made the announcement, and I let out of a whoop of victory. Since Nixon days, some of us had argued for naming an Italian Catholic to the high court. Yet, all six of Nixon's nominees, and the only nominee of Gerald Ford, were WASPs.
Scalia's death removes the court's most brilliant mind and most colorful member. Personable, witty, acerbic, a fine writer, he used his opinions, mostly dissents, not only to make his case but to skewer the majority opinion.
And while Sen. Mitch McConnell may be faulted for not waiting a decent interval after Scalia's death to declare that the Senate will not confirm any Obama nominee to succeed Scalia, the majority leader's position is exactly the right one for the party.
Some of us in the Nixon campaign of 1968 still recall how Chief Justice Earl Warren, fearing his old antagonist Richard Nixon might be elected, offered his resignation to LBJ in June of 1968, but contingent on Senate confirmation of a successor. The fix was in.
Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas, a crony, to succeed Warren and Judge Homer Thornberry of Texas, another crony, to fill the Fortas seat. Nixon, urged by his old friend William Rogers, Ike's attorney general, stayed out of the battle. Some of us did not.
Senate Republicans, led by Bob Griffin of Michigan and including John Tower, Howard Baker and Strom Thurmond, held up the vote on Fortas, until they had enough support to sustain a filibuster and run out the clock. In October, Fortas threw in the towel.
The following spring, President Nixon named U.S. Appellate Court Judge Warren Burger to succeed Earl Warren as chief justice.
The GOP Senate majority should follow the example of that gutsy Senate Republican minority of half a century ago. The window for any Supreme Court nominees should be slammed shut -- until 2017.
Republicans should tell our "transformative" president that his days of transforming America are over, that he will not be remaking the court into a bastion of the left after his departure, and that, while he has the right to nominate whom he wishes, the U.S. Senate will exercise its right to reject any nominee he sends up. If the court will then face many 4-4 decisions for the next year, so be it.
Given the divisions on the court and balance of power, and the disposition of liberal justices to impose upon the nation an ideology that would never be embraced democratically, the Republican Party is almost duty-bound to oppose any Obama nominee.
What kind of Supreme Court do the American people wish to have? That is a question to be decided in 2016 -- not by a lame-duck president, but by the American electorate in November.
Does the nation want an activist judiciary to remake America into a more liberal society, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would like to see it remade?
Or do the American people want a more constitutional court that returns power to the people and their elected representatives?
Let's have it out.
Republicans should tell the American people that when they vote in November they will be deciding not only the next president, not only which party shall control Congress, they will be deciding what kind of Supreme Court their country should have. Which is as it should be.
If the GOP can't win this argument, they have lost the country.
Hell! Screw the Supreme Court! Call an Article Five.
Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Let the bodies fall where they may.
Why not Obama? He's lazy and narcissistic. He'll be at a private beach in Hawaii or some Muslim trillionaire enclave, when he's not playing golf or chilling with NBA and music faves.
I like the proposed Liberty Amendment where any SCOTUS ruling can be set aside by a vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures.
If the seat does stay vacant for a long time, how long will it take for the New York Times editorial board to call the vacancy “a constitutional crisis”?
“I don’t like the idea of Obama appointing another justice, but the president gets to decide. The American people knew this when they elected him, twice.”
______________________________________________
Strongly disagree. Most of the voters who put Obama into office don’t know anything about the supreme court, let alone that the president is responsible for appointing its judges.
The voters who put Obama into office knew only two things:
- He’s black
- He will give them free stuff
Currently Republicans control 31 state legislatures and 3/4ths of all state legislatures is 38.
Whats the over and under on the republicans caving? 4 wks . .3 mos. 6 mos.? And who will be the first RINO to cave. My money is on Snow.
323 Obama-nominated federal judges have been confirmed by the United States Senate. 119 federal judges were confirmed unanimously, 38 were confirmed by unanimous consent, 63 were confirmed on a voice vote. That’s 220 federal judges who were unchallenged and 103 who were challenged.
6 Obama nominees were rejected via Republican filibusters of their nominations. Obama withdrew all six nominations and in all six instances Obama nominated a different judge who was then confirmed.
The latest Obama-nominated federal judge to be confirmed is Leonard Terry Strand. Judge Strand has assumed his duties at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. He was confirmed 93-0 on February 11, 2016.
IMHO the Constitution should be amended to provide that a justice be selected (at least on average) every two years, and justices retire as necessary to maintain 11 justices on the bench. I am agnostic about the role of presidential candidates in nominating justices, but consideration should be given to electing justices in off-year elections.To me the ideal constitutional amendment would be created by convention, and would explicitly name the justices of SCOTUS. Which would assert state supremacy, of a sort, over SCOTUS since it would not require any action by Congress or the president.
“The problem is that with the lower courts packed by Obama, a bunch of bad liberal decisions will stand if the Supreme Court is evenly divided.”
Exactly!
Thanks. I looked it up and it’s supposed to equal the number of circuit courts.
“Whats the over and under on the republicans caving? 4 wks . .3 mos. 6 mos.? And who will be the first RINO to cave. My money is on Snow.”
It was less than 48 hours before Linda Graham started saying that he’d like there to be “consensus” in agreeing to Obama’s appointment. It may have been even less than that, somewhere around 36 hours, before he started talking about giving approval. He definitely let their intentions be known way early.
And one point I believe that was true. But I think there are currently eleven circuit courts plus the D.C. Circuit Court.
Add three more young conservatives and make it 11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.