Showdown brewing over naming Scalia’s successor

President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

WASHINGTON (George Curry Media) – President Barack Obama will select a nominee to succeed the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia despite fierce opposition by Republican leaders who prefer the seat be left vacant for nearly a year so that it can be filled by the next president.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy,” Obama said in a statement Saturday.

Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the court, died of an apparent heart attack over the weekend while on a hunting trip in Texas. He was part of the 5-4 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court. Were he to be replaced by a moderate or liberal jurist, that would shift the balance of the court, something Republicans had pledged to fight against.

Under the Constitution, the president has an obligation to appoint the Supreme Court justice, who must then be confirmed by the Senate. However, conservatives who normally boast of being strict adherents of the U.S. Constitution are altering that stance in a presidential election year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who had already pledged to block any Obama nominations prior to Scalia’s death, urged Obama not to submit a nominee and said if Obama does, the Senate will not act on the nomination prior to the expiration of Obama’s term next January.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Democrats countered that the American people made their voice heard in the last two presidential elections, voting Obama into office in 2008 and re-electing by a wide margin in 2012.

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

And the record appears to support Reid.

Writing on the Supreme Court site Scotusblog, Amy Howe observed, “The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.”

Ironically, McConnell and every other Republican voted on Feb. 2, 1988, to confirm Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court appointment in his last year in office, which was also an election year. The Senate, then under Democratic-control, voted 97-0, with three absent, to confirm Anthony M. Kennedy. Kennedy was supported by 51 Democrats and 46 Republicans.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement Saturday saying, “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

However, Grassley was also among those voting for Kennedy in the 1988 election year.

As conservative as Scalia was, he was not as far to the right as justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, according to the Judicial Common Space project, which measures the ideology of Supreme Court Justices from 1953-2000.

Because of a progressive Black voice on the Supreme Court, some Obama supporters have urged him to nominate a Black woman – either Attorney General Loretta Lynch or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Howard University graduate – to fill that vacancy. Former U.S. Attorney General H. Holder, among others, has also been mentioned as a possibility.

However, at the beginning of this week, the leading candidate appeared to be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, a popular stepping stone to the Supreme Court. The son of immigrants from India, he clerked for conservative appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and Sandra Day O’Connor, a frequent swing voter on the Supreme Court.

Srinivasa, 48, former chief deputy to the U.S. solicitor general, was confirmed for his present position by the Senate by a vote of 97-0 in 2013, a fact Obama hopes will make his nomination more difficult to oppose.

A ruling in at least six major court cases may be postponed until a new justice is seated. The cases involve:

• Whether universities can use race as a factor in admissions (Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin).

• Whether states can change how voting districts are drawn based on total population or the number of eligible voters (Evenwel v. Abbott and Harris v. Arizona Ind. Redistricting).

• Whether unions can collect fees from non-union workers to use for collective bargaining (Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association).

• Whether states can impose strict medical regulations on abortion clinics that may cause many of them to close (Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole).

• Whether religious nonprofit groups can be required to provide employees with birth control that conflicts with their religious beliefs ( Zubik v. Burwell).

• Whether the federal government can defer deportation of undocumented immigrants and give them legal protection.

Although some of the cases have already been argued, they will be re-argued, if court precedent is followed.

The threat to sideline any Obama nomination to the Supreme Court follows a Republican slowdown of judicial appointments already underway.

“Senate Republicans’ aggressive slowdown in judicial confirmations so far in 2015 – and what is likely to be a continued slowdown through 2016 – are contrary to the confirmation records in the final two years of the other two-term presidencies since 1961 – Ronald Reagan, William Clinton, and George W. Bush,” according to a Brookings Institution study in September.

And the obstruction is not limited to judges.

According to an investigation by Politico, “New data compiled by the Congressional Research Service and obtained by POLITICO found that the Senate in 2015 confirmed the lowest number of civilian nominations – including judges and diplomatic ambassadors – for the first session of a Congress in nearly 30 years.” Press

Some of the major cases heard or scheduled to be heard this term by the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death casts uncertainty on the court’s term. No rulings have been issued in any of these cases.

Voting rights

The court heard a case in December about the constitutional requirement to make electoral districts roughly equal in population. Two voters in Texas asked the court to order a drastic change in the way states divide their electoral districts. Rather than basing the maps on total population, including noncitizens and children who aren’t old enough to vote, states must count only people who are eligible to vote, the challengers argue.

Affirmative action

The court in December weighed whether it was time to end the use of race in college admissions at the University of Texas and nationwide. Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case because she worked on it at an earlier stage when she was at the Justice Department.

Contraceptive coverage

In a case argued in November, faith-based hospitals, colleges and charities objected to the process the Obama administration had devised to spare them from paying for contraceptives for women covered under their health plans while ensuring that those women can obtain birth control at no extra cost. The groups complain that they remain complicit in making available the contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs.

Union fees

The court heard arguments in January in a California case that asks whether government workers who choose not to join a union can still be required to pay fees that cover collective bargaining. Unions fear the potential loss of tens of millions of dollars in fees could reduce their power to bargain for higher wages and benefits for government employees.

Abortion services

The court planned to hear arguments in March over a Texas law that would leave only about 10 abortion clinics open across the state. The case tests whether tough new standards for clinics and the doctors who work in them are reasonable measures intended to protect women’s health or a pretext designed to make abortions difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

Immigration

The court agreed to review whether President Barack Obama, acting without congressional approval, has the power to shield from deportation up to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and make them eligible .

Advertisement

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*