It’s not the Scalia Memorial Seat
Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic on the senators who are vowing to refuse to do their job:
Is it legitimate for the Republican-controlled Senate to refrain from confirming a replacement for the late Supreme Court justice until a new president is elected, as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and others on the right have urged? Or does the Senate have an obligation to approve a qualified nominee put forth by President Obama, as many on the left argued as soon as news of the death broke?
No, and yes.
He quotes Ted Cruz tweeting a ridiculous claim:
Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.
What? What does that even mean? How does the Senate “owe it” to a deceased justice to refuse to consider a replacement until there’s a new election? Once the justice is removed from the court by cessation of life, that thing on the court is a vacancy, not an inherited estate. It’s not the Scalia Memorial Seat on the court. It’s a vacancy. It doesn’t have any predetermined character. It’s a vacancy. An empty spot.
But the Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its “advice and consent” obligation. Says the Constitution, the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…” A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation.
And these people are sworn to uphold the Constitution you know. It goes with the job. They have to swear that oath on their first day.
Yes. Uphold the Constitution and keep all enemies, foreign and domestic, from wrecking it. ALL enemies. I observe that we have some domestic enemies of the Constitution running for President.
I am beginning to suspect (tongue firmly in cheek) that these people are sworn to uphold the real version of the Constitution. You know, the one that exists only in their heads.
So, would one possible outcome be that the next GOP President could get to break Nixon’s record by impeachment before installation? :-) Theoretically speaking, of course, on more than one level.
I don’t think that some of them believe the oath/affirmation they have made. Those in the Dominionist mold certainly say things that are utterly incompatible with the oath/affirmation.
Former member of a Christian Dominionist movement here. It’s all about twisting everything to fit the narrative and its goals. It doesn’t matter what it actually means because the Dominionists believe they understand better than you or anyone else.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1122201017798358/?type=3&theater
And what a great way to celebrate President’s Day, by pretending he’s not even in office until “somebody we like can be elected” — Hat tip to Tom Lehrer (Send the Marines)
This is somewhat of an aside, but: as much as I detested Scalia’s judgements in almost every case, the man was a strict constitutionalist (albeit an originalist) and would have been appalled at attempts to deny the president his constitutional duty to promptly nominate a successor. It’s worth remembering that when David Souter retired and a replacement was needed on the court, Scalia made a point of explicitly telling a reporter whom he knew would probably pass the information on to the president that he hoped that Elena Kagan would be nominated for the position. Say what you will about Scalia, but if you are conservative and you’re loudly yapping that the president should demur from nominating a successor of his choice, then you know nothing about the former judge whom you no doubt idolize.
MrFancyPants@8,
Perhaps Scalia also made comments to a reporter, but I think you’re thinking of David Axelrod, who was an advisor to President Obama at the time, and has a piece up on CNN’s site telling the story.