The death of Justice Antonin Scalia must send shock wave to the GOP. Scalia and Thomas are the two most reliable conservative votes in the Supreme Court. If Obama is able to get someone through the Senate to replace Scalia, the liberals will be the majority in the Supreme Court. So the GOP has to do everything to prevent Obama's nominee from getting confirmed.
The GOP does control the senate and so can prevent an Obama's nominee from getting confirmed. But there is a big risk in this. Most likely, Obama will nominate someone who had been confirmed with GOP votes in the past for appellate court. This will force the GOP to renounce someone they had voted for in the past. If there is no action from the GOP then the court will operate with just 8 justices for the year. If there is a 4-4 vote then the decision from the lower court will stand. This means that cases that would have been reversed if Scalia was still alive will not be reversed. So the conservatives will lose some cases they would have won even if there was no new justice.
The Democrats will denounce inaction on the part of GOP not to confirm. GOP voters will be on the side of no action so that would seem to be a wash. But I think the majority of independents will see the GOP as obstructionists here. To go a whole year without taking action is just wrong to neutral observers. Even if the GOP does not lose independent votes, the big fight over this is sure to get heavier voter turnouts in the election. Since heavy turnouts usually favors Democrats as demonstrated in big turnouts in 2008, this will be problematic for the GOP. With more GOP senators up for election than Democrats, a heavy turnout can possibly throw the senate to the Democrats. I am sure Obama and his party is not counting the chickens before they hatch, but the possibility of losses in all 3 branches must be frightening to the GOP today.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
4 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just when I thought the race for President couldn't get more crazy, Scalia dies and leaves an open seat in the land's highest court.
ReplyDeleteNothing new here regarding the political moves. It will be interesting to see what Obama does. It would make sense that he would have a short list. Either way, this will be a hard thing for the Republicans to overcome.
Am I the only one who thinks that Supreme Court Justices should not have a lifelong term and should not be appointed by the President?
Seems like an archaic way of doing things.
-LBOAYM
It looks like the GOP is determined not to confirm an Obama nominee, no matter who he or she is. So will Obama choose a moderate who had been praised and confirmed by the GOP in the appellate courts before or a liberal who will energize the Democratic base? I hope he goes the moderate route. Hopefully the decisions from such a justice will be less partisan and less predictable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that justices should not have a lifelong term. But if not appointed by the president, then by whom? I don't think it should be an elective office. I say the president appoints the justices and they serve the rest of that president's current term plus two more presidential terms (8years). So for example, if Obama appoints a justice this year, the justice will serve a total of rest of this year and 8 more years. If a justice is appointed in the beginning of a president's term, then theoretically he or she can serve almost 12 years.
I can accept your idea. I didn't know this, but I guess it's in the constitution that the President is supposed to appoint the justice. So I guess there's really no changing that. Now, one of the things I disagreed with Scalia about is his idea that we should take the constitution literally. I always believed that the constitution should be this fluid thing and changes with the times.
ReplyDelete-LBOAYM
I think everybody is willing to take the Constitution literally if it is to that person's favor. Take the Second Amendment. To the conservatives, taking the Second Amendment literally means that nothing can stop a person from having any weapon. But to liberals, reading it literally means that the right to bear arms only applies to a well regulated militia. Then of course, how do you define a well regulated militia? So even literal is subjected to a person's interpretation. I agree with you that the Constitution should be fluid and its interpretation can be changed with times. I don't think there is anyway the founding fathers meant that each citizen has the right to have an atomic bomb in his possession. I would say the same goes with AK47s.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that Scalia died of natural causes, but anyone else think that the investigation or the lack of it, is rather strange for a person of his stature?