Because the nomination of Supreme Court Justices is a constitutional responsibility of the president, Scalia's death has ignited fierce partisan controversy. Senate Republicans, along with the GOP candidates, have voiced their objection to another SCOTUS Justice being appointed by President Obama, fearing that his selection will give liberals the majority on the court. Showing his disapproval towards another Justice nominated by Obama, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice... Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" (Wall Street Journal). This standpoint has been backed by numerous members of the GOP, including Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Senate Republicans have vowed to block any attempts by Obama to appoint another Supreme Court Justice.
On the other hand, Senate Democrats and Hillary Clinton have been very vocal in their support for another Justice appointed by Obama, proclaiming that as long as Obama holds the seat of the presidency, he has an obligation to nominate Scalia's replacement. In one of his statements, Senate Minority Harry Reid explained that "The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible" (CNN). Clinton has reiterated Reid, declaring that "Barack Obama is President of the United States until January 20, 2017. That is a fact, my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not. Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote" (CNN). Thus, Democrats have expressed their support for another Justice appointed by Barack Obama, invoking the constitutional responsibilities of the president and the necessity of a nominee to fill the vacant seat of Antonin Scalia. I personally agree with the Democrats on this issue, since there is simply no reason why Obama should postpone the duties of the presidency until his successor takes office.
President Obama has already appointed two left-leaning justices during his administration (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), and the addition of another liberal to the court means that the more conservative justices would be outnumbered 5-4. Thus, there is much at stake in this whole dilemma, especially since the Supreme Court will soon be making historic decisions on issues such as gun control and affirmative action.
What do you think?
Should Obama nominate Scalia's replacement, or should he leave it to the next president?
If you think Obama should nominate Scalia's successor, why do you believe that a second-term president entering his final year in office has any right to make this selection?
If you do not think Obama should nominate Scalia's successor, why don't you think he has the right to do this? Is this not a constitutional responsibility of the president? What if the Supreme Court is split evenly on a vote and there is no one to break the tie?
How do you feel about the presence of so much partisanship in the Supreme Court, an institution that supposedly interprets the Constitution in an impartial manner?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-lines-drawn-in-congress-over-justice-antonin-scalias-successor-1455411187
6 comments:
I agree and think that President Obama has the right to elect a new Supreme Court judge and should exercise this right. As Hillary Clinton said, he “is the President of the United States until January 20, 2017.” Thus it is his duty to elect a new judge; it is especially important because we can’t have an evenly split Supreme Court on every issue. Just because it is his last year doesn't mean he doesn't have to follow his constitutional responsibilities; would we want him to just wait on other issues as well? This issue is a perfect example of how Obama intends to use the power of presidency to raise the pressure on the Republicans to hold hearings for his nominees. He has already begun speaking to the people and some Republican senators appear worried about potential backlash if the Senate refuses to consider President Obama’s nominee. However Republican Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, told NPR Tuesday that, “Most every Republican has to feel like in this really robust election year, with all the fighting and back and forth going on, that this is not the time to have a battle over a Supreme Court nominee.” This will be one of the most consequential Supreme Court fights in a generation, but I think it is key that Obama fights to elect a judge, not because the Supreme Court would be left-leaning, but because the United States can’t wait a year with so many big issues coming up with a evenly split Supreme Court. The fact that the Republican party wants to basically ignore the President's constitutional duty is frightening because the parties should follow the supreme law of the land, not the other way around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/politics/senator-charles-grassley-hearings-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
I believe Obama should appoint the next Chief Justice even though he is entering his final year in office. I agree with Claire--Obama is still the President until January 20, 2017, and therefore, should carry out his duties until that date. Additionally, there is no guarantee a Republican candidate will win the presidency. Who’s to say that the new president will make a decision that favors the Republican party? I agree with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who says, “The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons.” Important cases can't be brushed aside for months just because the Republicans don’t want to be outnumbered in the Supreme Court. Partisanship is natural, but the fact that it is getting in the way of the president trying to fulfill his constitutional duties makes it unacceptable. A democratic majority in the Supreme Court will surely change the playing field, but it allows a new era of reform—a change in perspective is necessary to keep the country advancing.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-lines-drawn-in-congress-over-justice-antonin-scalias-successor-1455411187
As both Gursimar and Claire have stated I definitely feel that Obama should appoint the next Supreme Court Justice to take over Antonin Scalia's vacant seat. Obama is still President and as such he still has all the constitutional powers he had the day he entered office, and will continue to have every right to use them until the day he leaves in a little less than a year from now. The Supreme Court plays a vital role in the functioning of our nation, it is the head of the third branch. With a seat being left open for so long it could prove detrimental, what with numerous important cases being brought before it and an even split between the justices. Furthermore it is vitally important that all sides note that the Supreme Court is not to be involved in politics and partisanship, their role in the government is to serve as interpreters of the Constitution and make sure that its rules are being upheld and protected. Therefore, while partisanship won't be ignored in this major decision due its pervasiveness in politics and people's decisions, it should not be the cause for a seat to be vacant for so long. Additionally as Gursimar pointed out, it is not guaranteed that a Republican will win office (so as to then select a conservative justice), once again proving that this 'fight' over whether Obama should make an appointment or not is really pointless.
Obama is within his constitutional right to appoint the replacement to Scalia in the Supreme Court. There is a vacancy that needs to be filled because when there is an even number of judges it means that there is no way to resolve a tie with a vote. My frustration is that there is such a partisan divide and motive on both sides of the spectrum. Obama should, in my opinion, remove partisanship from his decision and elect a centrist. Obama has already lined up many candidates that would fill a centered role so Republican-controlled Congress can get behind it. However, if the next Justice must be a purely political piece in the puzzle, I do feel that the most sensible move is to wait until the next presidential cycle so the vacancy filled is indicative of the whoever is in the Oval Office. So for me, it isn't black or white. I don't care either way what the views of the next Justice is. It will be most efficient if the next president and the next justice matched in "party" or in values. Otherwise, is Obama really wants to elect someone, he'll have to compromise with the Republican congress.
I think that it is very clearly stated in the Constitution that Obama has the constitutional right to nominate a vacant SCOTUS seat. Sen. Elizabeth Warren spoke on the matter, saying “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.’” Despite the fact that Obama is president until January 20, 2017, Republicans cannot act as if his second term is over. They cannot simply deem his a "lame duck" just because they don't like him. It makes no sense that Republicans would want to disobey the Constitution to replace Scalia who was a conservative believer in Constitutionalism. I thought it was interesting that Kevin M. Kruse of Princeton University said that the rule is not as simple as the Democrats imply. "The general rule, informal at that, is that a president shouldn't make nominations in last six months of his term — but we're well outside that window." This means that even this informal rule is still on Obama's side. Mitch McConnell thinks that the people should have a voice in the matter, yet Rasmussen Reports, which is known to be somewhat conservative, held a poll that showed voters would prefer Obama to fill the vacancy rather than waiting until after the next presidential election. Both the Constitution and the people are on Obama's side. Also, it disappointing for politics to be entering the Supreme Court which is supposed to be isolated from the partisanship of Washington.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-scalia-supreme-court-huppke-20160215-story.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/17/3750542/obama-mcconnell-supreme-court-poll/
As conflict arises following the death of the highly respected Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the main issue has immediately been made clear; politics are being involved in an area of our government that is formally not supposed to consider political views at all. The Supreme Court, by the constitution is stated as “The judicial power of the United States, they shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” Do you see one word about politics? Republican, Democrat? Because I certainly do not. The Supreme Court Justices’ sole duty is to defend and protect the laws of this nation. I guess you could argue it is impossible to keep politics out of this issue, because in reality there may be instances where a justice will be more conservative or liberal than the president had anticipated. Despite this all, the constitution declares it is the under the powers of the President to appoint new justices! Obama this Obama that, say there were another President on the podium, the same argument would erupt as well. This has nothing to do with a specific President, this has to do with the words of the constitution. And those words are that the appointment of new Supreme Court Justice’s lay in the hands of the President and the President only. People are angered when their views are not being seen, and the loss of such a right- winged Supreme Court Justice, appears as a loss of representation for the Republican party in the Supreme Court. However it is ultimately the president's decision to appoint Supreme Court Justice’s, and under the constitution that power cannot be taken from his hands. Ultimately, the partisanship in the Supreme Court is inevitable, despite the fact it is supposed to interpret the constitution in an impartial manner.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Post a Comment