Justice Antonin Scalia passed away Saturday morning in Texas.
Scalia was a staunch ally for gun rights and Constitutional Conservatism on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s expected the the divisive President Obama will seek to fill Scalia’s seat with another fringe leftist appointment before time runs out on his presidency. However, history isn’t in his favor when it comes to controversial presidents of one party pushing through controversial appointments on election years, especially as a lame duck.
Here are a few highpoints you should remember:
(Politico) – …Justice Antonin Scalia’s death could change the course of history on the contentious social and legal issues pending before the Supreme Court this term, especially in closely divided cases where he was expected to serve as a lynchpin of a conservative majority.
In cases where the eight remaining justices are evenly divided, appeals court rulings would be left to stand, but no precedent would be set for future cases. The justices could also hold cases and leave stays of lower court rulings in place, while awaiting confirmation of a new justice, but it’s unclear if they would do so for nearly a year if the Senate refuses to consider any nominee while President Barack Obama is in office.
(Washington Post) – Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”
Both sides have merit, and if Obama had a proven track record of appointing moderates instead of fringe leftists, there might be a chance that Republicans would give him a shot. That’s not going to happen. And speaking of shameful abdications, when was the last time Harry Reid’s Senate approved a budget for the country?
The question goes to election year appointments of Supreme Court nominees. Sure, there have been plenty that have gone through without much of an issue, but that was when the President and the US Senate were controlled by the same party.
When there’s “divided government”, where one party has the presidency and another party has control of the Senate – let alone a supermajority in the Senate – there has only been one appointment approved in an election year. From Gateway Pundit.
Since the Civil War, there have been eleven nominations to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year. Of those nine were confirmed, one withdrawn, and one was not acted upon. However, of the nine that were confirmed, eight were with a unified government–that is the President and the Senate were of the same party. Only Justice William Burnham Woods, nominated by Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) was confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1880. All other Justices who were nominated in election year were confirmed by Senates that were of the same party as the President.
Comments are closed.