Posted on 02/17/2016 1:21:00 PM PST by Kaslin
Few people in modern history have fulfilled their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" more than the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia was so well respected that the Senate voted 98-0 in 1986 to confirm him. These days it would be difficult to get a unanimous vote in support of Mother's Day.
It doesn't take a fortune teller to predict the scenario that would present itself if the political dynamics were reversed and a Republican president were in the White House with a Democratic Senate majority. Democrats would be demanding no justice be confirmed until the next president takes office and they would make it a major campaign issue. That is what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said in 2007: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances." That was 19 months before the 2008 election. It is a little more than eight months away from the next election.
The president is not about to nominate a conservative and should not be expected to. Will he pick someone who is a closet liberal, daring the Senate to reject that person, or will he choose an openly liberal person and challenge the Senate to block his nominee?
If ever there was a time for Senate Republicans to stand firm, this is it. Initial signs are good. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement that the next justice should not be confirmed until after a new president takes office. Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanCharles Grassley (R-IA) said much the same.
Some are speculating that President Obama, who quickly announced he will name a successor to Scalia "in due time," might try to make a recess appointment after the current Senate session expires January 3, 2017, should the Senate refuse to confirm his nominee. How long would such a justice serve, and who would decide? When President Eisenhower appointed William Brennan to the court during a congressional recess, Brennan stayed for nearly 34 years.
For the Left, this is an opportunity to impose a liberal agenda on the nation for perhaps as many as 40 years. For the Right, it will determine whether conservatives will have the power to stop an agenda they believe is proving ruinous to the country -- economically, legally and morally. The stakes could not be higher.
Justice Scalia summarized his constitutional philosophy in a May 2011 interview with California Lawyer magazine:
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey, we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."
It will be difficult for a Republican president to find someone as good as Scalia. If President Obama puts another liberal on the court, tipping its balance, that person is likely to undo all that Scalia has done to honor the Constitution.
The Senate should push the hold button and let the presidential candidates take it to the people to decide in November. Justice Scalia would have approved of such an approach.
When President Eisenhower appointed William Brennan to the court during a congressional recess, Brennan stayed for nearly 34 years.
But Brennan was eventually confirmed by the Senate for the full lifetime appointment. I wish Cal had explicitly made that point. If Obama does try a recess appointment, he/she will eventually have to be confirmed by the Senate to stay after the session of Congress ends.
Obama is going to pick someone that makes Ginsberg look like a right winger.
He doesn’t want a confirmation. He wants the fight.
You may be right. Obama may expect his nominee to be voted down by the Senate. That itself would be a campaign issue for Democrats in 2016.
To paraphrase Hillary’s senior thesis on Saul Alinsky, there is only the fight. These acolytes of Alinsky such as Hillary and Obama, want to always be fighting. They abhor compromise with those they consider their inferiors and who are not as liberal as their own enlightened selves.........
The question in my mind is, “What, if any, benefits would there be to any Republican for approving an Obama choice?” I can’t see any.
Regardless of who Obama nominates, all McConnell has to do is keep it bottled up in committee and refuse to allow it to come to the floor. He’s not up for reelection for four more years. Moving forward on the nomination would not do anything to help the Republicans up for election or reelection this November.
Why even consider it?
I called McConnells office today. After leaving a message to stand firm, I asked the young lady who took my call if she was busy. She said there were to a of calls all basically saying the same thing. Stand.
There. Fixed it.
I'd start with Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada. Both are esteemed jurists. Both were held up by Harry Reid in the Senate (makes a nice reminder for the mediots). Toss in Carl Stewart at the Fifth Circuit for good measure. All are minorities. Let Commander Xero and Happless Harry bitch about that.
I think Obama will nominate Sri Srinivasan.
Obama said yesterday he would nominate someone “indisputably qualified”.
This guy was confirmed by the Senate by 97-0 in 2013 to serve on the D. C. Circuit Appellate Court.
He’s not a political lightning rod like Lynch, etc. The public has no clue who he is.
Obama’s pitch will be, “How can you not confirm this guy after you unanimously confirmed less him than 2 years ago to the second highest level court in the land?”
And if you resist you are racists because he’s a brown-skinned Indian with a dot. The guy is 49 years old. He’ll likely be on the court for 30 years or more.
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.