Antonin Scalia’s death may have been a surprise, but
Congressional Republicans’ swift declaration – that Obama shouldn’t nominate a
replacement – certainly wasn’t.
Voters should “have a voice in the selection of their next
Supreme Court justice”? They did, when they elected Barack Obama president. Twice. He was elected to serve for four years, not three. If
he shouldn’t appoint justices now, should he give up all of his other duties?
I suppose Democrats would have done the same thing if a
Republican were in the White House. It’s not so much a Republican thing as it
is one more example of the deep division in Washington. And that’s a reflection
of how deeply divided Americans are.
Obama’s not taking Republicans’ advice, so we have an
interesting year ahead of us. Seems like Republicans are taking
a big risk by digging in their heels. What if Obama nominates someone
they’ve already approved for a lower court? Won’t they have a hard time
insisting that that person isn’t qualified? And if they insist on delaying the
nomination until the country has a new president, they risk having that
president be a Democrat – and having a Democratic-controlled Senate vote on the
nominee. They could have far less voice in choosing the next justice than they
have right now.
They’ll also have ramped up the partisanship in Congress,
fed the division and anger in the country, and further
eroded the public’s trust in government.
Earlier last week, before Scalia’s death, Obama gave a
lengthy speech to the Illinois General Assembly specifically addressing
those issues. And the speech contains a good citizenship lesson for all of us.
Reflecting on his own days in the Illinois Assembly, Obama
noted that because legislators had a chance to get to know one another, they
could become friends and could disagree without being hostile.
And by talking with constituents, Obama said, he learned
“that if you were willing to listen, it was possible to bridge a lot of
differences.” He learned that if politicians “just approached our national
politics the same way that the American people approach their daily lives – at
the workplace, at the Little League game, at church or the synagogue – with
common sense, and a commitment to fair play and basic courtesy, that there is
no problem that we couldn’t solve together.”
For the country to prosper, Obama said, we have to have
“citizenship and a sense that we are one.” But the “poisonous political
climate” of today, he warned, pushes people away and lets the most extreme
voices and interests take over.
Harsh disagreement, corruption in
politics, deeply polarizing differences aren’t new, Obama said, citing
Teapot Dome scandals, Watergate, Vietnam, the Civil War. “We’ve been arguing
since our founding over the proper size and role of government, the meaning of
individual freedom and equality; over war and peace, and the best way to give
all of our citizens opportunity,” he said.
“We’ve always gone through periods when our democracy seems
stuck,” he said. “And when that happens, we have to find a new way of doing
business.”
We have to do that now, Obama said, and we have to start by
acknowledging that we have a serious problem: “the nature and the extent of the
polarization.”
A willingness to listen, a sense of fair play, common sense,
basic courtesy: not a bad set of guidelines for elected leaders and candidates.
Not a bad list of ideals for the country. But in this political climate,
distrust, anger, and outright insults have become the norm.
Scalia’s death, and his open seat on the Supreme Court,
could give the members of the Senate of both major parties a chance to show
real leadership by working together on this vacancy. They could change the tone
of discourse in Congress, and set an example for all of us.
Sadly, we’re seeing no sign of that happening.
This article appears in Feb 17-23, 2016.
When did the Supreme Court become so politicized? I don’t know if people are aware but the Supreme Court should base their “judgment” on the Constitution and NOT political ideology, period. That goes for Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Independents, etc. We don’t seem to nominate Judges first, we appear to nominate party affiliation, gender, race, etc., first. We do that to get favorable judgment for an ideology. The Supreme Court should interpret. The only political action they should be involved in, is done in the privacy of their local voting booth. After pulling that lever,….back to interpreting.
As far as the nomination is concerned,…nominate. The nomination can then be discussed, debated, etc. and if all goes well, voted on. Follow procedure!
This is a case of SUPREME STUPIDITY, in my opinion!
========================================
However, this situation may actually set a good precedent for the future. By that I mean that once it is over with, lessons may be learned so that it becomes more difficult to have such nonsense in government.
There may be lessons for Rochester, as well. Must we continue to repeat past mistakes in government, here?
What about our failing Rochester School system? Must we keep making the same mistakes in education, which doom our children to failure in life?
http://www.SavingSchools.org
In other words, both sides of the political spectrum need to treat each other with Dignity.
Right on,….right on, my friend.
Oh,…I guess both sides of the political spectrum need to treat each other with no, zero dignity. What we should really do is to create a Politically charged supreme court. One that will base all of the decisions on ideology. Forget the Constitution. That poorly written document should be ignored. And,…and the ultra liberals and if possible the socialist agenda needs to be voted in this year. Wow, think about that, Puten could become our equal. We could be friends. No more cold war. Just a happy few at the top dictating to the masses. And equality for all.
You see,…. I can learn,.. I can be persuaded,…I can be convinced that America is on the wrong track. But if we all work together toward the same cause,…we can, together, ruin this country.
How sad of you to bemoan the divide in Washington when the republicans are doing or proposing to do the obstruction! Not that it would shame you in admitting your hypocrisy but should I remind you of how senator Schumer proposed to block in 2007 any nomination to SCOTUS by Bush in the last 18 months of his second term? Never mind a year! Should I remind you that a certain greenhorn senator Obama from Illinois tried to filibuster the nomination of Alito? What I think is that the republicans should “bork” any pick by this faux moderate in the White House.
With all due respect, Italo, yours is a blatant falsehood (taken from the usual right-wing web sites), the way you misrepresent what Chuck Schumer actually said in 2007: He was referring to the way Roberts and Alito lied in their Senate confirmation hearings about their judicial philosophies (and did they ever lie), and that should any future Dubya nominee be in the making the Senate confirmation process needed to do a better job on this. He was right.
There’s hypocrisy, all right – on the part of the Republicans. Their blocking a SCOTUS nominee is a complete disregard for the Constitution. Their hysteria, nastiness and desperation is just a sign that their power is slipping away. Personally I think President Obama should nominate Anita Hill, just to make the right-wing heads explode. She proved 24 years ago she is tough enough.
Not to worry, the next president of these United States of America will mend, unite and make it all better. It will be Clinton, count on it. The supreme court will soon be liberal and all “judgment” and “interpretation” of the Constitution will be without opposition. Conservatism, dead on arrival at the Supreme Court steps. At some point the only line that cannot be crossed, will be my property line. The non-sense of those hell bent on destroying this nation will be stopped there for as long as I can hold out. Sad that one has to feel that way. There doesn’t seem to be any respect for those with a different point of view. Some would have us believe that whatever that point of view may be,…deviate from the liberal/progressive view and you just don’t count.
Call me old-fashioned; “conservative” – note the small “c” – used to mean things like: prudence; respect for institutions; suspicion of foreign entanglements; a real understanding that society can only exist when build upon a series of social covenants. In other words, the utter and complete opposite of today’s “Conservatives” (large “C”) and the right-wing. “Judicial activism”? You mean like Citizen’s United, gutting the Voting Rights Act and of course the vile Bush v. Gore (where none of the five on the right would even sign it, and said this should not apply to future cases), to name just a few. It is also quite a hoot reading the right-wing trying to pretend to be victims.
Say what you want. There is enough criticism to go around for the politics. The nonsense, however, stops at my property line. That may sound bitter and threatening, but is not. Anyone one is welcome to our home to discus, in a civil way and tone, their views. I will respect their view and respectfully disagree when I believe it to be different. That goes for the opportunity to discuss the issues in the City Newspaper comment section, which is appreciated. Although it reaches a rather small segment of our local population, the stark differences are obvious. I don’t know how to heal the divisiveness, I only know that it has been accentuated over the past 7 years. The leadership has failed us in that aspect. I really had a sincere hope that the outcome of this administration had been more positive. We move on and hope for the best. Thanks for the “likes” and sorry about the “dislikes”.
What did Roberts and Alito lie about, Mr. Troll Whisperer? They probably had to be circumspect regarding Roe vs. Wade since that case has become the litmus test for anyone seeking confirmation to SCOTUS. I wouldn’t rule out that, in their heart of hearts, they were opposed to that atrocious ruling but they couldn’t say so explicitly. So, I suppose, they lied. How many lies has Obama told us? Here’s my pick for Scotus justice, if I ever became president: Ted Cruz. How about your head exploding?
By voting to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965, their Citizens United ruling, among others, made a total mockery of Roberts’ and Alito’s claims in their Senate confirmation hearings of “judicial restraint.” But thanks for the belly-laugh of complaining about President Obama’s “lies” while promoting Ted Cruz, a lying liar who is so loathed by his own party they prefer Trump – Trump! – to Tailgunner Ted. Cruz can’t even get a second vote in the Senate by his own party.
Gary Wills put it well, “What could be more absurd than for a cultist of Scalia like Senator Cruz to call for a popular referendum on Supreme Court justices?”
Ms. Towler writes above, “I suppose the Democrats would have done the same thing if a Republican were in the White House.” She cites no evidence. But there is evidence, all right – in the precise opposite direction: In February, 1988, with 11 months left to Reagan’s final term (so the same time-frame as right now), the Democratic-controlled Senate voted 97 – 0 to confirm Anthony Kennedy. But knowing that would require, you know, doing a little homework.