"The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.” Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Sam Burnham
Article II gives no timetable for approval of appointees nor does it compel the Senate to rubber stamp the President's selection. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that waiting until the new president takes his seat is either forbidden or imprudent.
Terrell Shaw
It is imprudent. (IMH&CO)
Sam Burnham
Terrell Shaw I understand what you are saying but neither your opinion nor mine carry the weight of the actual text of the Constitution.
Terrell Shaw
The GOP is considering a terrible precedent which will further embitter folks like me to consider similar obstructionism when the shoe is on the other foot.
Sam Burnham
The shoe is on the other foot. The precedent was set in 1987. How does that shoe feel now?
Terrell Shaw
You are partly right, but this --- to declare opposition to ANY nominee --- IS an escalation of the rancor.
Sam Burnham
This is Harry Reid's nuclear option, this is the Alito filibuster, this is Robert Bork.
And it's probably only going to escalate more.
Terrell Shaw
This is continuation of the decision to obstruct a president no matter what.
Sam Burnham
But it's also his continuation to advance extreme left policy no matter what.
Mostly, it's the refusal of both sides to hear the other no matter what.
Terrell Shaw
"Extreme left" Shish. There is NOTHING extreme about this president.
Sam Burnham
I'd argue there's nothing moderate about him.
Sam Burnham
Especially not his previous SCOTUS nominees.
Terrell Shaw
Sigh. You and I have little ground for debate on politics. But I love ya anyway.
Sam Burnham
Ditto
Paula Graves
I'm ok with waiting until Hillary or Bernie take office.
Terrell Shaw
Paula Ledbetter Graves If so I hope she (or he) will name Barack Obama. He would make a great justice and is still young enough to likely serve 20 years or more.
Dan Bevels
It was the Democrats, led by that bastion of morality, Ted Kennedy, that turned the word Bork into a verb.
Mr. Shaw, you can't convince me that you wouldn't be advocating this exact tactic, were it 2008 and it were Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had passed.
I mean, seriously, they went through the man's list of video rentals.
Sam Burnham
Schumer didn't have a problem with it in 2007 either.
http://www.breitbart.com/.../sen-schumer-senate-can.../
Liz Tyler
You know, I'm beginning to think a lobster would stand a better chance of getting by without withering attacks from either/both sides. I for one intend to stand down and leave his family and friends some peaceful time to grieve.
Sam Burnham
A lobster would have been a better choice than Kagan or Sotomayor.
Terrell Shaw
I have seen some of the things I detest in my own party. Some of it from the inside as a county and state committee member. I have found a much higher degree of idealism in Democrats, however.
One of the problems with the GOP is that the base of that party looks at govt as an active evil to start. When you put folks who hate public ed, for example, in charge of public ed, don't expect improvements in it.
Terrell Shaw
They actively sought to form a more perfect union, and treated statesmanship as a high calling.
Terrell Shaw
Now don't get me sidetracked again!!!! I need to get some stuff done.
(JK)
Ivy Elizabeth Holt Morris
Let's go back to the first presidents and Supreme Court justice nominations and remember what happened there! Ha.
George Barton
What is fascinating to me is that Justice Scalia would probably be siding with the Democrats in this situation. The president is supposed to appoint Federal judges. It's in the Constitution, therefore, we do it.
Sam Burnham
Actually, Scalia interpreted the Constitution as saying what it does say and not saying what it doesn't say. So he understood that the separation of powers designed by the Founding Fathers has the president in the role of appointing justices and the senate in the role of approving them. This gives the executive & legislative branches balances over each other as well as the judiciary. It also prevents a despot controlling the judiciary by fiat. There's also no timetable for approval or mandate requiring approval.
So if Obama nominates a candidate(s) and the senate either votes them down or tables them altogether, the Constitution is not usurped.
George Barton
They have already announced ahead of time that they are going to block anyone that the President nominates. It that is not usurping the Constitution, I don't know what is.
Sam Burnham
It's an election year and the president is a lame duck. If the president was Republican and we were replacing Darth Vader Ginsberg you would be fine with waiting for the election.
Terrell Shaw
I just checked it out on the chart of nominations on Wikipedia. A quick check shows Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Tyler, Hayes, Cleveland, B.Harrison, Taft, Wilson, FDR, and Reagan had presidential election year, or even sometimes true lame duck (after their replacement was elected) appointments approved.
It is the height of disrespect (IMHCO) to announce a determination to obstruct a nomination before it is even made. In this case that was done by the same guy who enforced virtually 100% obstruction in the senate beginning on Jan 20, 2009. And he made the announcement of his obstruction plan before the SCOTUS had officially announced Scalia's death. Unseemly. Disrespectful. Destructive of civil order in our Congress.
George Barton
Sam Burnham So I guess the President should just go ahead and resign now since the Senate won't allow him to perform his Constitutional duties.
Sam Burnham
Reagan's "election year" appointment doesn't count because the opening occurred well before election year, so drop that one.
FDR was the last one, so, as Grassley said, 80 years of no election year appointments by presidents of either parties. It's reasonable and constitutional.
George Barton, he can appoint someone. But the Senate needs not roll over for him. And I hope they don't.
Sam Burnham
I haven't heard Democrats say "constitutional" this much since...well...ever!
Joyce Mink
Framers considered the Supreme Court a subordinate branch and had now idea it would eventually become the strong branch it is today. Read the Federalist Papers.
Sam Burnham
We can read the Federalist Papers all you want. The Constitution established the Supreme Court as equal.
Joyce Mink
Article 3 doesn't give the Judicial branch equal power. In fact their power was pretty limited until implied powers doctrine
Sam Burnham
So are you willing to go back to John Marshall and reverse the actions of the court since then?
Because I would love to.
Terrell Shaw
Clearly we can't pay attention to John Marshall! He was appointed by lame duck John Adams during his last year in office -- Adams called it his proudest appointment.
Sam Burnham
I'm all for ignoring John Marshall.
Joyce Mink
They should be careful. If the Democrats take back the Senate- which is a possibility - the new president- who could be a Democrat - could appoint a strong liberal justice and get him easily confirmed. They might have a good shot at a moderate right now.
George Barton
Marbury vs. Madison was in 1803. The Supreme Court has been supreme a long time over constitutional issues. Even if the Republicans succeed in postponing the appointment until the next president and a Republican wins, the Democrats are going to remember. They will probably block or filibuster any candidate they don't like made by President Bush/Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bozo. Remember Bork. No one really knows what a justice will do when his appointment is ratified by the Senate. He/she can do anything he/she pleases that won't get him/her impeached, President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the court because he thought he was very conservative. Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education came pretty soon after that. The Republicans and Democrats know all of this. It's all just a game to get re-elected this fall. It's the American way.
Sam Burnham
They do remember Bork. How does it feel now?
George Barton
I just checked. 6 Republicans voted against Bork, 2 Democrats voted for him. 58 to42 against
Joyce Mink
Even after Marbury a decade passed before a constitutional challenge arose (implied powers), and it wasn't commonly used until the mid- 1900's.
Laurie Craw
There's a difference between a Senate considering a president's appointee and finding him or her lacking in knowledge, experience or integrity or exhibiting a pattern of extreme bias in past judgements or in answering their questions, and a Senate that refuses to even consider an appointee. Last I heard, Repubs had blocked many of President Obama's federal court judges as well. Do we have to amend the Constitution to force the Senators to do their duty within a prescribed time frame or else be impeached? What if this president refused to appoint a replacement because of a hostile Republican majority in the Senate and the next Democratic president (Hillary or Bernie) did the same, declaring, "I will not appoint until the people have their say in the mid-term Congressional elections," hoping Democrats will win back a majority in the Senate? If this GOP Senate is within its rights to not hold hearings and approve or reject appointees, surely the president is equally entitled to delay appointments indefinitely. Of course, the people would suffer without the justice they are entitled to, Bottom line, the GOP is not doing the job we pay them to do and justice is not being served. This is something fundamental we may have to take to the streets.
Sam Burnham
Amend the Constitution to force the senate do what you think their job should be during this particular scenario? That's ridiculous.
Tim Shiflett
Their job is to advise and consent. Period. In this case, they stated that they would not confirm anyone, no matter who it is. How is that Constitutional? There are no "ifs', here. There is no precedent to call on, here. What it simply is, is the fact that the Conservatives have dominated the SCOTUS for 45 years, and they mean to do whatever is necessary to keep it that way. They need to think about this. There is a better than average chance that the next President will also be a Democrat. Then, what?
Sam Burnham
Their job includes approving or denying appointments. There is no timetable
