The death of Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court at a politically fraught moment — the middle of a presidential campaign, and its outcome is impossible to predict. It has left Washington in one of those
The death of Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court at a politically fraught moment — the middle of a presidential campaign, and its outcome is impossible to predict. It has left Washington in one of those immovable standoffs between the president and Congress that offers no hope of a compromise.
President Barack Obama says he intends to nominate a successor to Scalia, in keeping with his constitutional obligation. Senate Republicans say he should abstain and leave the selection to the next president, allowing voters to decide who should be entrusted with this fateful appointment.
What makes the fight particularly intense is that replacing the very conservative Scalia with a liberal newcomer could determine the outcomes of many vital cases. …
Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell says the Senate will provide any nominee with no confirmation hearings, no votes and no other action. Obama insists the Senate has a duty to “move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.” Each side claims history, tradition and common sense support its position, and neither is backing down.
Yes, we’re aware each major party has played the opposite role when the power positions were reversed. If this spat, too, strikes you as a fight about politics disguised as a fight about constitutional principles, then you’re more than a little right.
Might we suggest there is indeed a middle ground?
Obama is fully entitled to name a replacement — and the Senate is fully entitled to have hearings, argue about the nomination and accept or reject it. The senators’ constitutional responsibility is to “advise and consent,” and that task includes the right to say: “The people of our states have given us the power to confirm judicial appointees, and this one will not do.”
What’s the downside of affording Obama’s candidate the full treatment before deciding his or her fate? The GOP thinks the American people want a court that will follow a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, allow state restrictions on abortion facilities, curb affirmative action and protect employers with religious objections from having to participate in the provision of contraceptives to their employees. Obama would prefer the justices rule differently on those issues — which means whoever he chooses is not likely to satisfy the concerns of Republican senators.
But there’s no harm in conducting a full review of the nominee’s record and subjecting him or her to hours of questioning about constitutional and legal issues.
Stonewalling makes McConnell &Co. look mulish, to the advantage of Obama &Co.
And who knows? If Obama knew his choice would get a normal review, he might select someone with a chance of winning over enough Republican senators to be confirmed. He might meet the loyal opposition part way. The court, both parties and the country might come out ahead.
So, the Senate should welcome a nomination, undertake a complete assessment of that person, and then make a decision the American people can understand. Vote yes or vote no, but vote.
— Chicago Tribune
