Not following the process makes it political

With the untimely death of a Antonin Scalia, the US Supreme Court loses a key voice on the court. He has been a strident voice in thinking more about the written words, especially when it relates to Constitutional matters. He has given rise to a valued term which has been used to describe him – an originalist.

The sad irony is he would likely be perturbed by those who are advocating not following the Constitution to replace him. These folks have said the President should not offer a replacement letting his successor pick Scalia’s replacement. But, that would mean SCOTUS would be one less justice for the rest of this term and much of the next, which begins in October. Starting out a new term, where the justices select the cases to be heard is not prudent and is unfair to the process.

To me, not following process makes it political. The process gives the President the right and duty to recommend a replacement. He should do his job. Then, it will be left to the Senate to do its job. I will be urging my state’s Senators to do their job and review the President’s recommendation. There have been fourteen justices confirmed in the final year of a President’s term, that last being one of our sitting judges, Anthony Kennedy.

In my view, when you do not do what you are obligated to do makes any action fraught with politics. I want a solid candidate nominated and from what I read there are several excellent candidates. When you don’t follow the process, the deviation makes it more political than it already is.

As for the politics of waiting, the leader of the Senate may want to think that through. If Donald Trump is the nominee, his party may risk losing the White House and Senate majority. His best bet to influence the decision may be right after the primaries.

Yet, it is grossly unfair to those who have spent time, energy and money in legal fees to present a case in front of SCOTUS. To end in a split verdict wastes many people’s time and money. So, let’s follow the process. The President will nominate someone he thinks will pass muster and the Senate should vet that person just as before. Do your job.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Not following the process makes it political

    • Agreed on the entirely political. That is why they should stick with the process. There are several unanimously confirmed lower court judges who are good candidates.

    • Thanks. There are many sins of omission. I find it interesting how candidates are saying government is broken then advocate doing nothing in this case. I would call that a contradiction.

  1. I knew, as soon as I heard about the vacancy, that the President would have a hard time getting his appointee approved. But the startling conviction of the Republican Party, that the President should abstain from his duty of presenting a SCOTUS candidate completely stunned me. What are they thinking? Government should just shut down till after the election? Of course, aside from SCOTUS, it practically has shut down…

  2. I have read a few articles that explained why it could really be in the republicans best interest to work for a full court. In reality, though, they will probably do everything they can to delay. The best outcome in that case would be for President Clinton or President Sanders to nominate Obama for the Supreme Court.

    • Janis, I agree it would be in their best interest, especially with the best outcome being a tie for cases through next February at best. Plus, blocking process will not look favorable. Yet, it is a reasonable bet they will wait. Keith

  3. Note: I have seen typical comments blaming the other side for politicizing the SCOTUS nominees mentioning the Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork nominations in the late 1980s. Thomas obviously was accepted, but Bork was turned down.

    To show why they had extra scrutiny, please Google Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill and read as much as you care to. It should be noted two corroborating witnesses to Hill’s testimony were never called. As for the Robert Bork, please Google his name and Watergate. He was the man who fired the lead Watergate attorney at the behest of President Nixon during the October Massacre after two bosses resigned in protest. These three attorneys – Archibald Cox, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus are American heroes.

  4. Note to Readers: Merrick Garland looks like a strong, bipartisan candidate who seven current GOP senators speak highly of. Ball is in the Senate’s court to do their job and vet the candidate. To do otherwise violates that constitution thingy that GOP likes to throw around like a weapon. If they vet and say no, they at least followed the constitution. If they delay, they are not following the process and that is political.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s