Skip to content

Justice Scalia Replacement Must Not Be Held Hostage To Presidential Election

February 13, 2016

It only took a few minutes following the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died before the partisanship from the Republicans started to be displayed.

Out of the gate was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who stated the senate should not confirm a replacement until after the 2016 election.  That is simply outrageous.

There is no way the Supreme Court should be held hostage to the whims of those who have consistently proven their number one goal is to stop the process of governing, and secondly to undermine and thwart the work of President Obama.

At a time when there is much to demonstrate as to why this nation is in no mood for the same-old political style of conducting business comes the desire from the GOP to stall the work for over a year of one branch of our government.

It is simply galling to hear the words of McConnell.   Consider the nomination to confirmation for Clarence Thomas was 107 days.  It is mind-numbing, then, to think the process to replace Scalia should last more than 400 days!

There is no logical way to proceed other than that stated by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.  He has called on President Obama to make a nomination to the Supreme Court soon.

“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,” Reid said.

The people of this nation deserve to have their government work in a fashion that meets the needs of our time.  Because Republicans wish to play their usual game with the levers of power does not mean they should be allowed to–and given the climate of outrage at Washington I strongly suspect they will not be allowed to do so.

10 Comments leave one →
  1. tom permalink
    February 17, 2016 8:26 AM

    I clearly stated that the the president should nominate and senate do what they must. My point is that before you chide the republicans and quote thick liberal democrats to give your position credibility their hypocrisy comes along with the text.

    This is how the American public learns that all politicians (and most of us who support them in some way, unfortunately) are full of it. So either hypocrisy matters–and what we say matters–or it does not. I would hope that were I a politician I would at least take the time to reflect on what I had said in the past on an issue and determine if and why my thinking had changed. I would feel some obligation to offer a sound reason for changing my mind.

    This being said, I believe that when the next republican rolls into this situation, the hypocrisy will be just as loud. We must also note that hypocrisy does not make a position illogical, but it is a character flaw because it points out in most cases where we follow our self interest before ideals like truth and justice and honesty. In the case of your post, the arguments you make on this position are always open to criticism on this issue until you admit and confront the raging hypocrisy of liberals like Reid and Schumer on this issue.

    The question is, do you see this blog as merely a place for cheerleading? Or is it your intent to provoke thought? My sense is that there is a lot of evidence to point to the latter.

  2. February 16, 2016 7:38 PM

    So, Tom, am I to assume that you now will place yourself at the same level as liberal Democrats when you talk about this matter? I am sure you do not echo all that your very possible GOP nominee says, and so I wonder why you seem to think that Schumer’s statement is somehow supposed to be weighty with me. The point is that you–like so many others in your party–have a decision to make. Do you side with the nation and the constitution or will you do exactly opposite what McConnell wanted to achieve this session with a GOP senate majority—that is to show the country they can govern if given the chance. There is no way you can think this makes your party look good.

  3. tom permalink
    February 16, 2016 7:12 PM

    Whatever, I’ll just revert to Schumer’s position:

    “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.

    Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances (emphasis in original).”

    Read more at:

  4. February 16, 2016 3:29 PM


    You seem willingly to not acknowledge the first part of this constitutional scenario.

    Bush nominated and Obama as senator fulfilled his task. One may not like the nominee or may not agree with how the senate responded in the way they voted.

    But the process was undertaken.

    What the conservatives are arguing now is that the president should not even nominate someone to the bench.

    That is simply absurd and will not be allowed to stand. Nor will the lack of a senate hearing and then a vote on this matter.

    Let them vote the nominee down, but they must act in congress.

  5. tom permalink
    February 16, 2016 2:57 PM

    As I said, is just democrats turn. Republicans will be up soon. But before you write these scolding posts, you should just be honest enough to admit the truth.

    Obama is the great constitutional scholar, but he fillabustered Bush appointees. Now he thinks things are different? Perhaps he should come forward and explain exactly why things are different here.

  6. February 16, 2016 1:47 PM

    Yes, Tom. let us look at partisan games, shall we?

    Here’s an interesting find: An article from a 1970 issue of the KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL discussing the history of the Senate’s role in advising and helping appoint… a Supreme Court Justice, and pleading for that body to rise above partisanship when it comes to this function. Paramount criteria toward confirmation, the author writes, should be the following:

    1) Legal and judicial competence
    2) Achievement or distinction within the legal profession
    3) Professional temperament
    4) High professional ethics
    5) Character and integrity in their personal life

    “The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform,” the author writes (p. 69).

    The wise and measured legal mind that penned these words was, of course, one Addison Mitchell McConnell.

  7. tom permalink
    February 16, 2016 9:03 AM

    The Kennedy nomination was delayed the better part of two years before it was finally pushed through. A better example is Miguel Estrada. Either way, a quick review of the literature reveals that all the major democratic politicians speaking on this now took the opposite view of things during the Bush years. They even held a whole retreat about it.

    Look, the whole thing is funny. Harry Reid is just revealed as the fool hypocrite he is. There is just no way around that, Deke. He has always been a fool and a tyrant in his own little way.

    Personally, there is a sad lesson here about partisan games. Once one side pulls the trigger, you can be sure the other side will, too. Its just the Democrat turn to reap what they have sown. I would rather just see the president nominate and then let the senate do its duty fairly, but we don’t live in a text book, do we.

  8. February 15, 2016 11:20 PM

    Or, Tom, you can instead look at the actions of Democrats as they dealt with the Kennedy nomination. This is really a time to either stand up or act small.

  9. tom permalink
    February 15, 2016 8:34 PM

    LOL! The depth of hypocrisy here is astounding coming from the likes of Harry Reid. What a silly fool to open his mouth now to contradict what he said earlier.

  10. February 14, 2016 7:10 AM

    I would have no problem with Obama picking someone for a replacement, but the problem is we all know he would not pick someone who would respect the Constitution but one who would legislate ideology from the bench.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: