Sign of the Times
Operative B writes in to encapsulate his annoyance with the Democrats’ execrable reaction to the passing of Justice Scalia.
The latest internet meme about the loss of Antonin Scalia is that we either replace him or we’re in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. Woe unto us! Without a replacement, the Supreme Court can’t overturn lower court decisions! We’ll be stuck in 4-4 ties forever! American justice will come to a screeching halt! We’re DOOMED!!
Um… Didn’t many on the left call for the recusal of Thomas from reviewing Obamacare? Didn’t many on the right call for the recusal of Kagan and/or Ginsberg when reviewing Obergefell (gay marriage)? Doesn’t this make those who call for the recusal of a justice, and a possible 4-4 decision, hypocrites?
There is good reason that the Constitution gives “advise and consent” power to the Senate. It is a balance against the executive, and requires the two branches to work together when determining the makeup of the third branch. The Senate, which is often called a “brake” and is made up of 2 members from each state, is the final authority on whether a justice is seated. This is well and good, since a Supreme Court justice is setting precedent that is applicable in all the states, not just those states with sufficient populations to sway the election of a President.
Democrats are screaming loudly that the child-king Obama deserves to nominate his own candidate for Supreme Court justice. McConnell has stated that he won’t hold hearings on any nominee, and that the justice should be nominated by the next president.
O great one, perhaps McConnell should allow the nomination hearings to proceed. The Republicans control the judicial committee and have a majority in the Senate. Without a majority vote in both the committee and on the floor of the Senate, any nomination will fail. Thus, the Republicans can indeed muster the votes to prevent a nominee from being seated.
As Democrats did with Bork.
Turnabout is, indeed, fair play.
As far as the “Constitutional crisis” nonsense goes, the Chief Justice can defer hearings until the next Supreme Court justice is seated. The only effect is a delay in a decision on a case that has most likely been on its way to the Supreme Court for a hearing for many years. There is no immediacy here.
My understanding is that any 4-4 Supreme Court decisions mean that the finding of the lower court stands. I fail to understand how this is a Constitutional crisis, especially as some Circuit Court decisions are never appealed to the Supreme Court.
Your greatness, perhaps you can shed light on whether the scales of justice will come tumbling down, bringing the rest of the country down with them and ending the rule of law forever.
This is all correct, and nicely eliminates the need for the Czar to explain anything. Operative B goes through all the major objections and points out how simply they’ve been resolved by precendent and procedure. This is very nice.
But what the Czar will add is the psychology behind all this panic. It’s evident right in this tweet from Hillary Clinton’s campaign:
1 Until Jan. 20, 2017, it's @POTUS' job to nominate Supreme Court justices—it's right there in the Constitution. -H pic.twitter.com/AWV47TRaTw
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 16, 2016
See it? Until January 20, 2017, she feels the President has a responsibility to nominate. What happens then? Well, her campaign—and most Democrats in leadership—assume that a Republican will be sworn into office and they lose an opportunity to overpower the Supreme Court—which was the last chance the liberals have to influence government. They lost the House, the Senate, and now expect to lose the Presidency.
Otherwise, why not wait? Why not vet some highly liberal nominees, get their back stories in order for the Republicans to gloss over before rolling over (as they did for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, among others)? What’s the value in rushing?
Well, if you’re pretty sure your chief candidate is at risk for arrest, and your second choice is a near-certain defeat nationally, you’ve pretty much written off a Democrat replacement president making a more relaxed and valuable choice.
Look at the meme going around about a 4-4 tie. Know what’s at the heart of that? A potential Gore v Bush tie for the presidency, which means you can’t have a new president pick a nominee because, oh my gosh, we won’t have a president without a tie-breaking Supreme Court. The reason for this hysteria? Because the Democrats think maybe they can pull off an electoral tie with the Republicans and win through a side door.
This is a sign of hilarious desperation, especially since there’s no certainty out here that the Republicans can win in November. Maybe the Democrats know something we don’t about their chances.
Or, as you say, not.
Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.