Do you think that – do you think that if Republicans continue down this road, that they say they’re not going to bring up whomever the nominee is for a vote, would you recommend to the president a recess appointment? All 43 presidents before him had four-year terms (unless they died in office or resigned, of course), but when it comes to arguably the president’s most important job, McConnell would limit Obama to three years.
Advertisement
An American flag flies at half-staff in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in honor of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as the sun rises in Washington, Sunday, Feb. 14, 2016. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president”. “I don’t see Justice Kennedy as an ideologue on state’s rights”. Scalia, the influential conservative and most provocative member of the Supreme Court, has died. That would put Republicans in the hard position of having to calculate the odds of facing a more liberal nominee in the event a Democrat wins this fall. Justice Elena Kagan, who filed briefs on the case as solicitor general, has recused herself.
This is a key question because Scalia was one of the five conservatives on the bench, giving conservatives a 5-4 majority on close cases.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush believes that President Obama has “every right to nominate” someone to replace Scalia, but he “needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record, similar to Justice Scalia, that is a lover of liberty, that believes in limited government, that consistently applied that kind of philosophy, that didn’t try to legislator from the bench, that was respectful of the Constitution”. Of course the GOP presidential contenders agree with him. Secondly, Hoover may have been trying to save himself in an election year.
Leahy pushed back by pointing to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed on February 3, 1988 – but only after Ronald Reagan’s initial nominee, Robert Bork, was rejected by the Senate.
We can expect the GOP primary electorate to boo the facts. Until Saturday’s announcement of Scalia’s passing, the next president’s role in nominating justices was pretty much an academic exercise: He or she might get a chance to make a couple of nominations, but not necessarily the opportunity to shape the direction of the court.
McConnell used to be part of the mainstream.
On the Democratic side, voters will have to consider whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is better equipped to take on the full might of the conservative attack machine.
Meanwhile, Democrats have argued that it is the Senate’s Constitutional responsibility to promptly confirm a new justice, avoiding a possible series of 4-4 tied votes.
McConnell used to know that.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of MA, said in a statement on Sunday that to not move ahead on a nomination “would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself”. While Senate Republicans have already pledged to obstruct any nomination, Obama will undoubtedly exercise his right and responsibility under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to nominate and fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
Cruz added: “By the way, the Senate’s duty is to advise and consent”.
Advertisement
But Republicans said the so-called “Thurmond rule” – an informal history of not voting on judicial nominees in the months preceding an election – should be observed. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it could happen if Obama decides to compromise on his flawless candidate and instead nominate someone whom he can live with and whom Senate Republicans can live with too.
