Washington – Scalia’s Death Sparks Debate Over Replacing Him

    2

    FILE - In this Oct. 8, 2010 file photo, the Supreme Court justices pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated, from left are, Justice Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Standing, from left are, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr., and Elena Kagan. On Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016, the U.S. Marshals Service confirmed that Scalia has died at the age of 79. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)Washington – Justice Antonin Scalia’s death immediately sparked a heated election-year fight over whether President Barack Obama should try to fill the court vacancy. Republicans on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail insisted the choice should fall to the next president.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

    His position was echoed by a pair of senators seeking the GOP presidential nomination: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

    The White House issued a statement offering condolences to Scalia’s family but did not immediately provide any hint about whether Obama planned to nominate a replacement.

    His decision would likely determine the tenor of much of his final year in office — and ricochet onto the campaign trail. Obama, who already has little goodwill on the Hill, would certainly face stiff opposition from Republicans who want the chance to further tip the court to the right.

    Senate Democrats made it clear they expect Obama to nominate a new justice and that they would work vigorously to keep Republicans from dragging out the confirmation process. They offered early counterarguments to Republican statements that the decision should rest with the next president.

    “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”

    Democrats pointed out that Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year — 1988 — the final year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Kennedy had been nominated in November 1987 after the Senate rejected Robert Bork and Judge Douglas Ginsburg bowed out.

    Democrats also argued that waiting for the next president in January 2017 would leave the court without a ninth justice for more than the remainder of Obama’s term as Senate confirmation on average takes just over two months.

    “With so many critical issues before the Supreme Court, I am hopeful that the president can move as quickly as possible to fill this vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

    Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons.”

    Before Scalia’s death, the court was ideologically split with many 5-4 decisions. The remaining justices are generally divided among four conservative votes and four liberal votes — leaving the next nominee crucial to the court’s direction, potentially for years to come.

    The current session has major cases still undecided. Cases that already have been argued by the court but not decided involve Obama’s executive orders easing immigration rules for many people in the country illegally, a Texas case that could increase Hispanics’ voting strength, another Texas case challenging affirmative action rules at the University of Texas, a California case challenging employee unions’ practice of requiring public school teachers to pay dues for union activities and yet another Texas case challenging a law that could force many clinics offering abortion services to close.

    When there is a 4-4 tie, now a distinct possibility this spring, the result is basically to affirm the lower court decision before the case came to the Supreme Court. On a major issue, the high court would be likely to rehear the case once it had its full membership.

    There are no time restrictions on appointing a new justice. If the Senate confirms a nominee, he or she could begin sitting to hear cases for the remainder of the current term.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    2 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    leahle
    leahle
    8 years ago

    We live in a Constitutional democracy. Our Constitution clearly says that the President has the obligation to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, with the Congress providing “advice and consent.” It does not say that the Congress should obstruct. It does not say that there should be no appointments in an election year (Reagan appointed Kennedy in an election year and the Republicans in Congress voted for him). The people of this country elected Obama in a landslide. This means that the voters have had their say and chose Obama to make Supreme Court appointments. This is how a democracy and our Constitution work. The Republicans are showing that they absolutely DO NOT respect the Constitution with this obstructionism.

    Dr_Bert_Miller
    Dr_Bert_Miller
    8 years ago

    Dear Anon,

    Next time you post, please include your name. You wrote, “The people of this country elected Obama in a landslide.” Were you referring to his 52.9% win (2008) or his 51.1% (2012) win? Thank you for providing us with the constitutional quotation, “advice and consent.” True, the Constitution does not say that Congress should “obstruct” the president. However, do you realize that “advice and consent” does not mean that Congress should “advise and approve” a president’s every gambit? For example, if this president nominates Mrs. Michelle Obama for the Supreme Court, do you agree that the Congress might choose to reject her nomination? Suppose the president chooses to nominate the most far-left, wacked-out, liberal jurist he can find, and the Republican controlled Congress rejects the nomination. Would you soberly assert that such a move would evidence Republican disrespect of the Constitution and obstructionism? When the Democrats rejected President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice, did you rail against “Democratic obstructionism?” A president is not a king, 51/52% is not a landslide, and not all no’s constitute obstructionism.