The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has created a political firestorm. Republican senators are saying they will refuse to even consider any nominee to replace Scalia sent to them by President Obama. I said a few days ago that I thought they were making a serious mistake. President Obama is sure to nominate a moderate for the court, and the Republicans would be passing up the chance to put a moderate on the court (in the vain hope they win the presidential election, and can nominate a right-wing extremist).
It looks like I'm not the only one with that opinion. The traditionally conservative Dallas Morning News also thinks the GOP is making a mistake with their obstructionism. Here is what the paper's editorial board had to say:
For as long as there’s been a Supreme Court, it’s been the job of the president – and only the president – to put forward a candidate to fill any vacancy on its bench. For just as long, it has been the Senate’s job to decide whether to seat that person.
The president nominates. The Senate deliberates.
Comes now an argument from Senate Republicans that the stakes are too high for such precedent to hold. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists President Barack Obama not nominate anyone to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia. That can wait till next spring, after a new president is sworn in and has time to consider his choices.
To back up this argument, McConnell has promised to reject any nominee sight unseen. No matter who they are.
To begin with, this is chancy politics. Senate Republicans should use their current leverage to push Obama to make a more centrist choice for the seat. McConnell’s path surrenders that leverage and renders the seat just another spoil for whichever party wins in November.
Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio immediately signed on to McConnell’s plan. Jeb Bush and Gov. John Kasich urged a more reasoned course, and from Donald Trump came this sage exhortation: “Delay, delay, delay.”
Yes, it’s uncommon for vacancies to occur in an election year. But when they have, no president of either party has sat on his responsibility and refused to nominate a successor. Nor has the Senate ever simply refused to even consider a nomination with so many months to go before the next election.
Eleven months before the 1988 election, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy. Fresh off blocking Robert Bork, Democrats were conciliatory. Three months later, Kennedy was confirmed 97-0.
This page has long argued that presidents have wide latitude in choosing Supreme Court justices. We’ve also urged the Senate to scrub the candidates for signs of ideological extremism or inadequate preparation, which can be legitimate grounds for rejection.
When fate gave President George W. Bush back-to-back vacancies to fill, we lauded his choice of John Roberts for chief justice, citing both his qualifications and his reassurance that he’s no extremist. We had reservations about Samuel Alito, but his Senate hearings persuaded us he was well within the conservative mainstream. We urged his confirmation.
McConnell is right about the stakes. The nation is sharply divided. This choice could determine the court’s leanings for years. As a result, Senate Republicans should insist Scalia’s replacement not be a “legal extremist” or fall outside the mainstream.
But unless he changes his mind about a blanket rejection, McConnell has forfeited that opportunity.
The far wiser, and only responsible, course is for Senators to hold their hearings, study Obama’s choice and then all members, liberal or conservative, cast a vote they can defend.
This become one of the issues that can help drive a wedge between the Billionaire Republicans and the Billion Prayer Republicans -- as can gun control. (And it was LGBTQ rights that started the cracking.)
ReplyDelete'
For years the connection between them has been solid, and the 'symbiotic scam' they worked has been effective. Going back to Everson, the first School Prayer Decision -- some would take it back to incidents in French History -- the rules have been simple.
'
The semi-huckster publicity-loving preachers would 'sell' their influence and congregations to the Republicans -- who couldn't get a majority for their aristocracy without them -- in exchange for a few photo ops, and the Republicans introducing bills that couldn't pass (and that, for the most part, the Republicans preferred wouldn't pass), the preachers would convince their hearers that Republican economic principles were 'Biblically-based."
'
The alliance began fraying for two reasons; the congregants began realizing that three or four decades of promises had won them not even advances, not to mention victories, and that they could run their own candidates who really meant it when it came to getting pregnancy forcing and homophobic laws passed. And the Business Republicans might have gotten scared that their allies might even try and impose the laws on theirownselves, not just on the 'liberal hippies.' (The 'upper classes' always had more abortions and were more gay-tolerant -- over all, and with the 'benefit' of the closet -- than most 'Christians.')
'
And, of course, another weakening of the link came as more gays came out of the closet and the Christians discovered that some of their friends and relatives had been gay right along. (The blogger who tells about his aunt, ordinarily a supreme right-wing Christian, who discovered her husband was gay and had AIDS, and chose 'Christian charity' -- and nursing him, lovingly, over his last days -- over Christian self-righteous condemnation is not an isolated incident.
'
[Don't know if this is a platform with a character limit. Just in case, I'll start a Part 2]
[Part 2]
ReplyDeleteIt was LGBTQ rights that first caused a major breach. Sometimes we on the left are so bedazzled by the temptation to see Corporate Capitalists as 'comic book villains' that we forget that, for the more part -- except for the fossil fuel and similar types -- their main desire is simply to have a quiet area where they can earn money.. They are frequently irresponsible on a criminal level, frequently extremely stupid -- as businessmen often are if they leave their boardroom and specialty -- but, overall, if kept tightly regulated,they are necessary to the economy, to true job production, and to decent wages. (The 'financialist' class are different. They add nothing to the economy except complicated new games for the Wall Street Casino, they -- not most businesses -- are the main cause of the inequality increase -- and when their 'new games' go spectacularly bust, they've already 'cashed out' and are on to the next game. And, btw, if I thought Bernie understood this distinction -- as I believe Hillary does -- I'd be less worried about him as a candidate.)
'
[Grabs self by collar, drags self back to main thread.]
'
It was when TARGET contributed money to Bradlee Dean that the business community discovered that gays spend money too, probably more than the over-childrened, under-brained, tithe-saddled "Christians." And they also discovered that their employees mght be gay as well.
'
Other groups and companies too notice, and now there are few Fortune 500 companies other than Exxon Mobil that don't provide full rights for their gay employees, and benefits that were given before they were required foor their married ones.
'
[Another break until later this afternoon -- but this will get somewhere eventually, if my computer stops acting up.]
Despite the wandering, I have had a point. The Supreme Court tie is NOT beneficial in any way to the Business Republicans. (Had it been a 'liberal' who died, it would be different.) Now, the best they can hope for is a 4-4 tie on a controversial case -- and they are never sure if Kennedy will come up 'heads' or 'tails.' Even if the lower court has ruled on their side, the decision applies just to that case and doesn't set a precedent. Which means even a 'victory' will require expensive re-litigation.
ReplyDelete'
If the failure to act becomes a political issue, it is likely to favor the Democrats, which increases the odds of other Liberal justices getting appointed -- maybe much more liberal than whoever Obama nominates -- and it will probably mean Obama's candidate will STILL get the first opening.
'
On the other hand -- and I may have said this above but need to keep saying it, Cruz is a dominionist (not a 'snarl-word' but an accurate description of his religious position. For him, only Christians should be at the top of the 'mountains' of politics, law, entertainment, business and the military among others. And 'Christian' is not a wide description but a very narrow one. We already have exampples of Cruz pastors denying that Catholicism or Mormonism are Christians -- and they don't like 'mainstream' Protestants much either, while Jews are supposed to be convinced (through 'grace' or a 'hunter' -- like Hitler -- to return to Israel.
'
If they understood this piece of Cruz, they might send so much money to Hillary she couldn't spend it all, even on down-ticket candidates.
'
And let me repeat, these are not the Robertsons and Falwells and Roberts' of the past, though Tony Perkin's stench is still around -- him and I push your rules. These are not 'big name
publicity hounds. Most people, even many Christians, don't know these names, and with the controversy attached to some of them (even in the evangelical community, International House of Prayer is often called a cult, it was evangelical pastors who debunked Barton's THE JEFFERSON LIES and his other books) it is a risk to use them that can onlt -- as far as I can see -- be because Cruz believes what they belief.
'
[Again, the best place to watch these people and find out who they are is PFAW's Right Wing Watch. Talk2Action is far too hysterical and sloppy to count on -- when they did their book on 'The Family' in 2007, the 'Manchuriian Candidate' was supposed to be Hillary. Thanks for puttiing up with all of this, even the repetitions from previous posts.]