When a
really big controversy hits I usually like to give it a month or two to see
where things settle. But for this one I couldn’t wait. This one is a beauty.
I watched TV
news and saw two parties talking past each other. The Democrats were saying
that of course the President should do his Constitutional duty and nominate a
replacement for Judge Scalia. Republicans were saying that they have the power
in the Senate and would definitely turn down an Obama appointee or simply won’t
go to the trouble of acting since it is a fait accompli.
Instead of
focusing on the obvious story talking heads have already wasted enough hours to
write the definitive almanac on love. Experts continue to discuss and
debate the meaning of the remaining months of Obama’s time in office. They
debated if he is a lame duck or not. They went on endlessly about the
difference between a vote and not having a vote. They talked about Senator Schumer
and what he said in 2007 compared to what he said last week. We have heard
people analyze court appointees who were denied hearings in the past. Then there is the issue of whether or not today's voters should determine the choice.
All that
discussion is juicy but meaningless for today’s question. What no one seems to
want to say is the obvious – we have a President and a majority party that are
driven by ideology. Hillary was saying that even if President Obama nominated a
moderate and reasonable judge – those darned Republicans would not give her a
hearing. But folks – let’s be realistic. Is there a snowball’s chance in Hell
that he would nominate such a person? Obama has publicly hated many of the decisions of
the current Supreme Court. Remember Citizens United? That case is always and everywhere lamented by Democrats who would love the chance to have it overturned. Obama is being sued by
groups who want to overturn many of his presidential directives as well as his prize legislation, Obamacare. Are you telling me that Obama would nominate someone who would threaten liberal progressive values?
Obama will nominate a justice who will turn the tide of opinion on the Supreme
Court. This new justice will allow the liberals on the court to have their sway and by all means the new court will get many chances to support Obama and to tear apart
anything those hated Republicans want done or changed.
So what are good Republicans to do? Basically there is only one thing they can do. They can
stall the process so that the next President might not have such clear ideological
and political goals. It makes absolutely no sense for Republicans to not use
their Constitutional prerogative to turn down anyone the President might
nominate. But why waste everyone’s time? So they are just telling the president
to hold off.
This
debate has nothing to do with the Constitution and nothing to do with what past
presidents have done near the ends of their terms. It is not about democracy. This debate is like
everything else going on now – it is about people at the ideological ends
pointing fingers and yelling at each other. Us folks in the middle keep shaking
our heads and wonder how we got to such a place. Obama and liberals want to
preserve the Obama legacy or at least prevent conservative decisions later this
year. Thus they want Obama to appoint a progressive friend. Republicans want to tear apart Obama’s
encroachments and move the court in a more conservative direction. They do not
want Obama to appoint a progressive friend.
So now we
have one more thing for the Democrats and Republicans to argue about in the
coming election. Instead of admitting that the Court appointment is a political
issue the Democrats will say the Republicans are obstructionists who won’t
allow the President to fulfill his Constitutional responsibility. The
Republicans will counter that the Senate has a Constitutional duty to not agree
to Obama’s nominee.
Does this
surprise anyone who lives in a bifurcated America these days? The extremes have
taken over and EVERYTHING has become political. Compromise is seen by both
sides as a cop out. Each side clings to "It is our way or the highway". Why would appointing someone
to the Supreme Court be any different? Pretty soon I will have to choose
between a Republican brand of JD and a competing Democratic brand. What a mess.
YUP A mess. Bloomberg for President. The ideological extremes...which are a minority are ruining the right for democracy to work properly for those who it is supposed to serve. The majority do not vote...no on to choose from.
ReplyDeleteI wish it were that simple. If the majority won't vote for a moderate candidate now is Bloomberg so wonderful that his stepping in the race would change all that?
DeleteDear LSD. Yep, a mess. Yep, politics drive the argument/debate; there is no Constitutional issue other than one an uninformed person—or pure irrational ideologue—could try to make. For once the Rs enjoy a clearly defined Constitutional power; they’ve decided to not even committee an Obummer nomination and stated that publicly. Good for them. For once they’re showing some testosterone. Let the extreme partisans Obummer and Mr. ‘NO DEAL’ Reid reap the seeds they sowed. The country will not suffer because of this SCOTUS vacancy. Should HRC be POTUS and the Senate stays R she will have the pleasure of attempting to blunt the sharp political elbows thrown about by Obummer/Reid and be forced to nominate someone truly acceptable to the R-controlled Senate.
ReplyDeleteThe argument/debate will be on the disposition of 4-4 decisions; whether to remand them to the lower courts or wait until the vacancy is filled. In the latter case I think Roberts makes that decision—and if so I hope he remembers his testosterone and waits for a conservative Justice to preserve the Court’s conservative majority. It’s that simple.
YUP. It is not unconstitutional to have poor leaders but is a sin not to be informed and to vote...if there is anyone to vote for.
ReplyDelete