scalia460x
 WASHINGTON – President 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.
Obama said in a statement Saturday, “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.”
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.
Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had already pledged to block any Obama nominations prior to Scalia’s death, urged President 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.
Senator 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.
 In this July 21, 2015 file photo, Attorney General Loretta Lynch speaks in East Haven, Conn. Lynch is voicing her support for police officers in a speech before the National Fraternal Order of Police. At a conference in Pittsburgh on Monday, Lynch thanked police for running toward danger and “working to maintain the peace.” (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

In this July 21, 2015 file photo, Attorney General Loretta Lynch speaks in East Haven, Conn. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)

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 mentioned as a possibility.
In this March 8, 2014, file photo, California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks during a general session at the California Democrats State Convention in Los Angeles. The number of Californians whose personal data was hacked last year jumped sixfold to 18.5 million accounts and as many as one-third of those people will become victims of fraud, Harris says in a new report released Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2014, on data breaches in the nation's biggest state. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

In this March 8, 2014, file photo, California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks during a general session at the California Democrats State Convention in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

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 a 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) and
  • 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.
According to a Brookings Institution study in September, “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.”
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.”

Also On New Pittsburgh Courier:
comments – Add Yours