Now where the Republicans used to enjoy a 5-4 majority, there sits a divided bench. With a largely Democratic Executive branch and largely Republican Legislative branch, already divided government is about to get much more confusing. And the question that remains will the Congress accept any of Obama's nominations.
This is extremely important as we are approaching election time. The decision of the new Supreme Court Justice could impact and be impacted by the likely nominee, depending on which way our country is leaning.
Also who ever gains the majority in the Supreme court will play an important role as many things have recently had their constitutionality questioned. Just some issues to come up have been: immigration, abortion, birth control, redistricting, unions, affirmative action, and environmental concerns. These all have relatively new court cases pertaining to them which may soon be impacted by the Supreme Court.
Scalia's death has created yet another aspect of divided government. Which party do you think will be in the majority? How do you think his death means for the interpretation of the constitution? How will a divided bench proceed over many of these controversial cases?
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/impact-of-scalias-death-on-pending-supreme-court-cases/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749464/the-simply-breathtaking-consequences-of-justice-scalias-death/
7 comments:
Scalia’s death has brought up many issues that will continue to divide our government today. President Obama has said that he will appoint a justice to take Scalia’s place, but Republican Senators have threatened to block his appointments. If the senate wants to hold out until the next election, there will be a vacant seat for 10 months, which is far too long. Mitch McConnell says that he will refuse to bring up the nominee in the Senate for a hearing. I hope that Obama decides to appoint a more moderate candidate and I hope that the Republicans in the Senate will give his appointment a chance before they completely deny the nominee. Updates from the White House have recently said that Obama may choose someone who has been backed by Republicans in the past and does not have a significantly liberal background. In any case, the senate should not deny the appointment right away.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/18/how-support-for-senate-hearings-on-an-obama-court-nominee-benefits-mitch-mcconnell
Scalia's death was definitely very sudden and very tragic. IT is almost sad that, no matter what you think of his voting history, his death was passed over by most politicians as they use his death to push their own partisan agenda. As a public servant for three decades, I think that the public owes Scalia a moment of silence far greater than he was given. While I definitely do not see eye-to-eye with him on his voting, I think the way people reacted to his passing was a disgrace.
In terms of what this does mean for politics, it should be interesting how this further polarizes the race. I am sure that Trump will have more outrageous names to throw into the nomination pool, Bernie and Hillary will share some names, and the rest of the Republicans are probably looking to replace Scalia 1:1 if they can. However, I do believe that Obama will fulfill his promise to fill the seat before his term ends, thereby cementing his legacy further. This will be interesting for years to come for sure, because the majority can sway either way at this point.
I personally believe that there should not even be a legitimate conflict regarding this situation. As stated in the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II Section II, "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law", there seems to be no conflict over the nomination of a federal judge. The President is given the power to put forth a candidate and the Senate has the ability to review said candidate. Within this Article, Section and Clause, of the Constitution, or even within the entire Constitution itself, it makes no mention of restrictions on the President's ability to appoint a Judge if a Supreme Court Justice is in fact absent. The only reason that the Republican party is up in arms is that fact that they will essentially lose power within the Supreme Court. Thus, they have decided to act like children and are trying to hold on to every ounce of power they have. Yet, even with the Republican majority in the Senate, I'd like to hope that the President will appoint a qualified and balanced judge that will create no cause for controversy and see his or her way to SCOTUS. If the Senate wants to negate the appointment, they absolutely have the right to do so, but they must have a substantively legitimate reason.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/conservative-supreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-160213225339731.html
Katie,
I think that the president clearly has the right to nominate a new Supreme Court judge to the bench. Not only is it explicitly stated in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, but it has historically been done by the President. Although the Republicans of the Senate have said they will reject any nomination he presents, liberal or conservative (Huffington Post), he should at the very least exercise his ability to nominate a federal judge. Everyone knows the conservatives are mad about the potential of losing their majority on the bench, but at this point at the end of Obama's eight years I lament just how little we have come as a nation in terms of partisanship. The public sector is just as partisan in 2016 as it was in 2008. Party affiliations are so strong, that senators are now rejecting constitutional rights, only for their own party's gain. It has been one of Obama's goals in his office to make Washington more less partisan, and the partisanship of both houses has posed one of the biggest obstacles of his presidency.
This truly a remarkable occurence. Obviously, Scalia was an American hero as Ted Cruz has said (Huffington Post), and his death is a tragedy. But this crux of modern American politics in an election year will be studied and recorded in the history books for centuries. We are witnessing history. In my mind, I've dreamed up the possibility of Obama setting a precedent of partisanship and electing a qualified, respected conservative -- in order to both uphold his constitutional right, and show that it is all politician's duties to compromise, for not only their sake but for the sake of the nation. I hope that this tragedy can somehow unify our houses and Washington, but I feel as though that is sadly unrealistic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-supreme-court-vacancy-history_us_56bfaaf0e4b08ffac1258cec
I think that the Democratic party will hold the majority because while there is a democratic president, the House is republican while the Senate is Democratic. The politics of the Supreme Court are ultimately irrelevant due to the nature and duties that the justices of the Court hold in upholding the Constitution and the strictly the law of the land. The Constitution and law are not influenced by public opinion or political parties. I think that since Supreme Court Justice Scalia was the more conservative interpreter of the Constitution that the floor of the Supreme Court might be more willing to interpret further into the Constitution and law in his absence. They bench will proceed with more deliberation and further interpretation of the Constitution. They have not chosen a new Supreme Court Justice yet but also do not have to wait until the November presidential election to do so; the current President holds just as much power as anyone to choose a new Justice.
The question of whether or not Congress will approve of President Obama's appointee is difficult to judge. On one hand, if Obama selects a relatively moderate judge this may may be enough for approval out of worry that the next president (if a Democrat), will elect someone even more left wing. Additionally, the Republican party runs the risk of receiving negative criticism and media coverage if they choose to reject a moderate nominee to a position that should technically be void of any political association at all. However, this is a major change in the makeup of the Supreme Court and the legislative branch, being a majority Republican, is likely to push for a majority Republican. As for the interpretation of the Constitution I doubt there will be much change. All of the Supreme Court justices are meant to serve as protectors of the Constitution and while some may have a broader interpretation of its writings, the central goal is still in place. Next week is the first time that Congress will reconvene since the death of Scalia and there are various questions about what they will do. Many Republican senators are suggesting that they may hold a hearing for the nominee, even if they decide to reject him or her later on. At present, the general mood from the Republicans, who hold the majority, is that they will reject, at some point or another, any nominee that Obama appoints. However, politics are unpredictable and the unfolding of what will happen to the Supreme Court bench will be an event that shapes the entire future of our generation.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467258090/senate-gop-faces-split-on-supreme-court-vacancy
I also agree that the current Supreme Court term will be drastically affected. Keep in mind that after a year of cases upholding gay marriage and protecting Obamacare, this was supposed to be a conservative year. Upcoming cases include the fate of affirmative action, abortion restrictions, religious liberty, voting rights, immigration and public-sector unions. Scalia would have definitely voted conservative, creating a 5-4 majority on most if not all of these cases.
It is tragic to see him pass, though, no matter the chaos in his wake. He was a brilliant writer and judge, who helped bring about a conservative renaissance among the nation's highest court, for better or for worse. We will just have to wait and see how turbulent the nation will be as it seeks to refill the hole left in his place.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/antonin-scalia-1936-2016
Post a Comment