Saturday, February 13, 2016
may be a day that will reverberate throughout the entire 2016 Presidential
Election Season. It was on that day that
an official in Presidio County, Texas, Cinderela Guevara, declared Associate
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead of natural causes. Shortly after Justice Scalia was pronounced
dead, a cacophony of Republican voices emerged suggesting subtly in some cases,
emphatically in others, that the Senate would not consider any nominee that
President Obama might put forward to fill the seat formerly held by the late
Justice.
The Senate Majority Leader,
Mitch McConnell, said the American people should have a voice in the selection
of the next justice, (and oh, by the way, he implied electing President Obama
twice did not qualify to meet that standard); he added the vacancy should not
be filled until after a new President is elected. The Majority Leader’s opining was swift and
sure, coming about an hour after the Justice’s death was confirmed.
The timing was propitious in
that it occurred prior to last Saturday evening’s GOP Debate in Greenville,
South Carolina. Following the Senate
Leader, each of the last six men standing in the GOP race (some would argue, to
the bottom) for the Presidential nomination opted to protest even the idea of
President Obama selecting another nominee for the High Court.
But it did not stop with
them. The siren, or if you prefer, dog
whistle call circulated around and throughout the GOP universe, especially in
the all-important realm of the Senate. A
number of Republican Senators weighed in on the subject, including:
Senator
Orrin Hatch, Utah – A member of the Judiciary Committee, and potential
candidate for The Supreme Court (presumably by a Republican President). Yesterday he said, “There’s no need to bring
forth a nominee to Succeed Justice Scalia in the politically charged
environment of a presidential election year.”
He further argued that “The Constitution doesn’t say that you have to do
this in a certain constraint,” in comments made to CNN.
Senator
Rob Portman, Ohio – He said, “I believe the best thing for the country is to
trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment
that could reshape the court for generations.”
(Again, I note, the people have spoken, twice!
Senator
Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania - Mr. Toomey said, “Obama insists that he will
nominate someone for the court. He
certainly has the authority to do so.
But let’s be clear – his nominee will be rejected by the Senate.”
Senator
Ted Cruz, Texas – One of the GOP’s leading Presidential Candidates elevated
filling Scalia’s vacant seat the centerpiece of his campaign.
On paper, this is a battle
the GOP is positioned to win. Their role
in considering Supreme Court nominations is advice and consent. Of course, they do not have to approve the
nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently composed of 20
members. Of that number, 11 are
Republicans, 9 are Democrats. This is
the Committee charged with holding confirmation hearings, and voting whether to
send the nominee to the full Senate. The
GOP also holds an overall Senate majority, 54-46. As such, Democrats have the unenviable,
conceivably impossible task of persuading 14 Republicans to join them in
breaking what is sure to be a filibuster.
The
math is actually the simple part of the looming decisions on this
question. The political calculus is also
significant. Control of the Senate will
be determined by the outcome of November’s elections. Democrats view Ohio (Portman), Pennsylvania
(Toomey), New Hampshire (Kelly Ayotte), and Wisconsin (Ron Johnson) as states
the Party can possibly flip in November.
As a result, they are highlighting the GOP Senator’s call to wait until
next year…and the next President. For
example, Ted Strickland, an Ohio Democrat has produced a funding appeal that
emphasizes Senator Portman’s position.
In it he said:
Senator Portman “has a clear choice to make: He can look out for his
Party and D.C. special interests by holding back President Obama’s nominee, or
he can do his job for the people of Ohio.
On
the other side of the aisle, Democrats had their own observations and
tacks. They unfolded a little something
like this:
Governor Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire – She criticized Senator Ayotte,
arguing that President Obama’s Constitutional right to nominating a replacement
is not suspended in his last year in office.
Three Pennsylvania Democrats challenged Toomey and railed against
partisanship over Senatorial responsibility.
It is clear we face another example of the partisan divide that has
shadowed the Obama Presidency.
Senator Dick Durbin, Illinois, Number 2 Democrat in the Senate – “Senate
Republicans continue to think that governing is as simple as being against
President Obama at every turn. It’s not,
and the American people deserve better leadership than they’re getting with
this Congress.
As
the early days in the wake of Justice Scalia’s demise pass, Democrats appear to
be intent upon trying to pressure the Senate Majority Leader to allow a nominee
to move forward. Thus far Senator
McConnell has shown no evidence he is likely to relent from his initial
position, expressed shortly after the death of Justice Scalia was announced.
A
number of the conservative groups that exulted in satisfaction at having had a
hand in forcing GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner to step down have
questioned Senator McConnell’s loyalty, and insisted that he remain form in his
commitment.
Michael Needham, Heritage Action – “Senator McConnell is right. Under no circumstance should the Republican
Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst
of picking the next president.
Republican rhetoric condemning President Obama’s willful disregard for
the rule of law will ring hollow if they do confirm a nominee.”
In
the overarching picture, Republicans and Democrats have argued over the
Senate’s production, or lack thereof this year.
Any potential action on trade, criminal justice reform looks more
unlikely than ever. However, the
President’s allies are endeavoring to make it clear that if the GOP chooses to
ignore or delay the President’s nominee, they will accuse the GOP majority of
obstruction, thus framing a salient argument in their case to retake the
Senate.
The
President's allies made clear that if the GOP ignores or delays President
Obama’s nominee, they will accuse the GOP majority of obstruction and use that
argument in their bid to win back the Senate.
It’s safe to say, this will be chess, not checkers.
For
his part, President Obama has lifted Justice Scalia’s legal philosophy and
injected it squarely into the debate.
The Constitutional scholar committed to follow the words and “original
intent” of the Constitution by choosing an indisputably qualified nominee. He is flatly rejecting the calls of the GOP
to leave the selection to his successor.
The
President said he was amused by those members of the GOP who call themselves
strict interpreters of the Constitution, and who were citing unwritten
precedent about not confirming justices during an election year…in order to
justify their position. He went on to
say:
“It’s pretty hard to find that in the Constitution. The Constitution is pretty clear about what
is supposed to happen now.” To put a
finer point on the conversation, the President said, “I expect there to be
hearings. I expect there to be a vote. Full stop.”
The
President made those comments yesterday shortly after two key Senate
Republicans expressed some level of doubt about the Majority Leader’s
suggestion that there should be no nomination process during an election year.
Some
experts noted GOP leaders might have made a tactical error that could incite a
public backlash. Republican Senator
Charles Grassley, Iowa, head of the Judiciary Committee indicated he might be
open to holding hearings on an Obama nominee.
He added he’d wait until after the nominee is revealed before deciding
on the course of action.
Thom
Tillis, Republican, North Carolina, warned his GOP colleagues that if they
rejected the President’s nominee, sight unseen, they might actually be rightly
called obstructionist. I suppose time is
an arbiter of perspective, even for Republicans.
On
Saturday evening Grassley had said it was “standard practice” to not confirm
new Supreme Court justices in an election year.
He said:
“It only makes sense that we defer to the American
people who will elect a new president” in November. I’m sure it is more than somewhat significant
that legal experts have cited more than half a dozen instances since 1900 in
which justices were confirmed during an election year.
Senator
Grassley was one of the 97 Senators who voted unanimously to confirm Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy in February 1988, which just happened to be the last year of
the Reagan Presidency. There is
considerable speculation not just on whom the President will nominate will be,
but on whether the individual will be a moderate or a liberal. Quite naturally, neither the current
Judiciary Committee, nor the Senate would confirm a liberal. However, refusal to confirm the President’s
nominee might be used to create a spike in Democratic voters this fall. There may actually be some motivation to take
this route because the truth is, the GOP, even if they hold hearings is not
likely to approve an Obama nominee, on GP, even if that person were deemed a
moderate.
So,
what has already been shaping up as an unpredictable election season just
received an added wrinkle. We knew the
Executive Branch was up for grabs and there would be a new President next
January. Now it looks more likely the
Legislative Branch may get caught up in the winds of change, as the Senate
appears to be in play. Finally, whether
this year or next, there will be a new Justice added to the Supreme Court. In the super unlikely event President Obama
prevails and his nominee is confirmed, or if not, but a Democrat is elected in
November, the majority on the High Court will change hands from Right leaning
to Centrist to Left leaning. We have
truly reached “AnotherLevel: All Three Branches of Government in Play!”
I’m done; holla back!
Find a new post each Wednesday.
To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom
right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your
e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me
up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to
your in-box.
Consult the links below for more
detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment