Jump to content

The Senate Majority Leader Rules Out Replacing Justice Scalia Until A New President Is Elected


Recommended Posts

[i'd like to remind everyone that it's NOT okay to discuss politics or religion unless it's in an intellectual or historical fashion. Personal insults are forbidden, as are blanket statements about political parties or specific religions, but it *is* encouraged to discuss policy and decisions in terms of their implications and impact, either potentially or fully realized. I believe I've mentioned to everyone that I am very much of a political independent, and that I judge each and every issue on its own merits, and that is the way I want this community to function.]
The specifics of this issue are a disservice to our country and its citizens.

"Republicans Rule Out Replacing Antonin Scalia Until New President Is Elected" by Stephen Dinan on washingtontimes.com

Before a member of the Supreme Court is even set to rest - the very *day* he is found deceased - the Senate Majority Leader has ruled out replacing a vacancy on the Supreme Court for at least *11 months*, which is almost 25% of a full Presidential term.

Why? What difference does it make, other than the possibility that one party might (repeat: might) not "get" a Supreme Court vacancy filled to its liking? This type of partisan governance *must stop*.

I will add that the ranking "opposition party leader" [we should not *have* an "opposition party," and Senate members should not be "led"] is quoted in that article as saying, "The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons." Allow me to go a step further, and say that this sentence would be more complete, and more correct, had the Senator left out the prefix "under" - read the sentence again with that prefix eliminated, and it will be obvious what I'm saying.

Continuing the idea introduced in the previous paragraph, just as the Senate Majority Leader is doing a disservice to our country and its citizens by delaying governance, so would the President - any President - who would nominate a candidate based on his or her partisan liking. The person appointed should have one characteristic: to be the one most qualified for the job, period. Any President who selects someone who *isn't* the most qualified for the job has done a disservice to our country and its citizens.

The above paragraph is largely theoretical, because it is the President who determines which candidate is "most qualified for the job," and this is where the rules get bogged down in their own imperfections - how can a President possibly know who is most qualified to be on the Supreme Court? The answer is not simple, but it should surely involve consultation with legal scholars who aren't influenced or corrupted by partisan prejudice. While this is not a legal requirement, it *is* a moral requirement, and quite likely one that has never before been executed. The losers because it hasn't been executed? Our country and its citizens.

Of course, all these flaws are, in theory, "corrected" by checks and balances, but you can plainly see where that path has led us.

It is the normal function and responsibility of our federal government to maintain continuity, and it absolutely *should not matter* who is President, and which Supreme Court Justice vacates their seat - this country, as an entity, has an obligation to our citizens to keep operating normally and without interruption.

What if North Korea attacked South Korea? Would we wait 11 months to decide what to do about that? I don't care if it's a President's last day in office - things need to keep moving.

This should absolutely *not* be a partisan issue, and this post has absolutely *nothing* to do with either of our two political parties. It is about the action - or inaction - of the Senate Majority Leader on this particular issue, and I'd be saying the *exact* same thing if the political situation was reversed.

I've seen too many examples of this type of political stonewalling by both major parties, and it's why people, like me, *detest* raw, partisan politics.

And I hope people notice that I didn't mention the name of any individual or political party, because this post has absolutely nothing to do with any person or any set of political beliefs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know how often it happens that someone votes for a candidate to become president in the national election then votes in their state election for a representative or senator who has gone on record saying he or she will do everything possible to oppose the president you just voted for. I bet it's more often than you'd think!

Just saying that in our system it's possible to compartmentalize national interest and your state's interest to the point of absurdity.

Often times when people say they hate Congress they really mean they like their own Congressman but they hate everybody else's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how these guys who are strict constitutional constructionists when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, (and allowing 25 first graders to get massacred in their classroom), also have no problem adding entirely new sections to the Constitution (in their heads) because the opposing president has 11 months left in his term.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...