Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement

[Revmitchell]

With Justice Scalia’s sudden passing, the Supreme Court and our country has lost one of the most brilliant and ardent supporters of the U.S. Constitution. And now our nation faces a historic moment.

With the passing of the conservative lion of the Court, the next Supreme Court justice will alter the ideological composition of the Court for decades to come. Landmark cases about abortion, religious liberty, and Executive overreach will be decided in this term alone.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[The President] shall have power… by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court.” The President is free to offer any nominees up at any time. But the U.S. Senate must provide advice and consent, which means at least 60 U.S. Senators must agree. Historically, Supreme Court nominees need even greater levels of bipartisan support to become lifetime justices.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley are both committed to letting the American people decide at the ballot box this November, letting our 45th President appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement. While President Obama remains free to appoint a conservative committed to upholding the Constitution as his replacement, he has given us no reason to believe he would.

So the American people should get to decide.

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

When Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes retired from the bench on January 12, 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed by President Hoover on February 15 and confirmed by the Senate on February 24th. Importantly, even this case is one in which the same party controlled both the Presidency and the Senate.

http://aclj.org/supreme-court/histo...president-appoint-justice-scalias-replacement

 

[Baptist Believer]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley are both committed to letting the American people decide at the ballot box this November, letting our 45th President appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement.

Unfortunately, the American people decided that Mr. Obama should be President, so they have already cast their vote. There's no reason to wait except that certain conservatives don't like the fact that they are not in charge and want to get public opinion on their side by claiming the American people didn't actually speak in the last election.

While President Obama remains free to appoint a conservative committed to upholding the Constitution as his replacement, he has given us no reason to believe he would.

That's probably true. Elections have consequences.

So the American people should get to decide.

And they have, back in 2012. I don't like the result, but I believe in the rule of law, not political expediency.

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

I don't have time to fact-check this allegation this morning, but it is irrelevant. We should go by the Constitution, not what has been done recently.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Irrelevant. We should go by the Constitution, not what has been done recently. Has the Republican Party given up on the rule of law?

When Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes retired from the bench on January 12, 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed by President Hoover on February 15 and confirmed by the Senate on February 24th. Importantly, even this case is one in which the same party controlled both the Presidency and the Senate.

Why does it matter that the Executive Branch and the Senate are controlled by different parties?

It doesn't.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.


http://aclj.org/supreme-court/histo...president-appoint-justice-scalias-replacement

Rev. your history is incorrect.

Kennedy was confirmed in an election year, 1987, 29 years ago.

Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan on October 15th, 1956, to the Court Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. That was only 22 days before the presidential election.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Rev. your history is incorrect.

Kennedy was confirmed in an election year, 1987, 29 years ago. He was nominated in 1986, an election year.

Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan on October 15th, 1956, to the Court Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. That was only 22 days before the presidential election.

From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/justice-kennedys-confirmation-debunks-key-gop-talking-point

Title:
Justice Kennedy’s confirmation debunks key GOP talking point


About 14 justices were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted this morning:
A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.
Yes, in Reagan’s eighth year, nine months before Election Day 1988, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Kennedy with ease.
Chuck Grassley, who’d already been in the Senate for seven years at that point, delivered remarks on Feb. 13, 1988 – exactly 28 years to the day before Scalia’s passing – urging the Senate to confirm Kennedy during that election year.

 

[Zaac]

With Justice Scalia’s sudden passing, the Supreme Court and our country has lost one of the most brilliant and ardent supporters of the U.S. Constitution. And now our nation faces a historic moment.

With the passing of the conservative lion of the Court, the next Supreme Court justice will alter the ideological composition of the Court for decades to come. Landmark cases about abortion, religious liberty, and Executive overreach will be decided in this term alone.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[The President] shall have power… by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court.” The President is free to offer any nominees up at any time. But the U.S. Senate must provide advice and consent, which means at least 60 U.S. Senators must agree. Historically, Supreme Court nominees need even greater levels of bipartisan support to become lifetime justices.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley are both committed to letting the American people decide at the ballot box this November, letting our 45th President appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement. While President Obama remains free to appoint a conservative committed to upholding the Constitution as his replacement, he has given us no reason to believe he would.

So the American people should get to decide.

Both you and Mitch McConnell are confused. The American people decided when they elected Obama for his second term. He's not under any obligation to select the type justice that you or this obstructionist Senate thinks he needs to.

The CONSTITUTION provides for the President to select nominees. As such, the President who was chosen by the American people, and who was President at the time of Scalia's death should name the replacement.

All McConnell and Cruz have done with their comments is shown the American people AGAIN who is REALLY dividing the country.

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

When Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes retired from the bench on January 12, 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed by President Hoover on February 15 and confirmed by the Senate on February 24th. Importantly, even this case is one in which the same party controlled both the Presidency and the Senate.

http://aclj.org/supreme-court/histo...president-appoint-justice-scalias-replacement

All that is moot since McConnell, Cruz and company immediately came out and expressed their intent to filibuster any nominee. This isn't about any precedent. This is about them not wanting a democrat President to name the new justice.

 

[Revmitchell]

Unfortunately, the American people decided that Mr. Obama should be President, so they have already cast their vote. There's no reason to wait except that certain conservatives don't like the fact that they are not in charge and want to get public opinion on their side by claiming the American people didn't actually speak in the last election.

Not trying to be harsh but this attitude is what is wrong with America. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean he Gets his way. The President does not override the Congress. By the way Congress was elected by the people the same as the President.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev. your history is incorrect.

Sigh......even if that were true I did not write the article so the "history" cited in the op is not mine. Let' start being honest in how we deal with people around here.

 

[Zaac]

Not trying to be harsh but this attitude is what is wrong with America. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean he Gets his way.

So what's it gonna be? The people vote for the next President and he gets his way or the people voted for the current President and he gets his way?

All you're doing again is showing that this is ALL about you and a bunch of Republicans not liking Barack Obama and attempting to do everything that can be done to make him look unfavorable and fail.

You seem to be okay with the next President getting his way because you're holding out a false hope that it will be a Republican.

The President does not override the Congress.

And Congress doesn't override the people.

By the way Congress was elected by the people the same as the President.

Then Congress should do their jobs and let the President do the job for which he was elected.

 

[Baptist Believer]

To be fair, we need to remember that this is something that Jay Sekulow wrote, not RevMitchell.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Not trying to be harsh but this attitude is what is wrong with America. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean he Gets his way. The President does not override the Congress. By the way Congress was elected by the people the same as the President.

Sure. That's why he should be allowed to nominate anyone he wants to nominate and the Senate has the right to confirm or reject the nomination. I never intended to say anything otherwise.

The article you cited DID make an argument against Obama even nominating anyone based on alleged precedents. It is clear to anyone not blinded by party loyalty or contempt for Obama that he has the right and responsibility to nominate a new Justice for the Supreme Court. However, the article tries to make a case against it by making an argument based on what has been done relatively recently - with lots of qualifiers.

I probably won't like the person Obama nominates, but that doesn't mean that I am going to pretend that he doesn't have the right to do it. I'm not also going to say that the majority of the American people who voted for him in 2012 shouldn't have their voices heard in favor of the majority that will vote in 2016.

 

[InTheLight]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley are both committed to letting the American people decide at the ballot box this November, letting our 45th President appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement. While President Obama remains free to appoint a conservative committed to upholding the Constitution as his replacement, he has given us no reason to believe he would.

So the American people should get to decide.

The American people did decide when they elected Obama president in 2012. He's in office and he gets to nominate someone.

I suspect Obama will nominate a very divisive person, perhaps someone that pushes all the buttons--a openly gay, Hispanic woman for example. That way, he can really make the selection of the next Supreme Court justice a huge part of the election. Think of the political rhetoric: Republicans war on gays, women, and minorities all rolled into one neat package. Might even be able to sway the Senate back to the Democrats. Do Republicans really want this?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Sigh......even if that were true I did not write the article so the "history" cited in the op is not mine. Let' start being honest in how we deal with people around here.

But you cited the article as it supports what you want. So, you wanted it to be true. It is not true and the author is not honest.

Admit that fact, the author of the article was wrong just as if the GOP politicians crowing the same, but false message.

Also, I thought you were a law and order and a constitutional man. The Constitution clearly says the President is to nominate Supreme Court Justices.

Please start being honest. Thanks.

 

[Zaac]

The American people did decide when they elected Obama president in 2012. He's in office and he gets to nominate someone.

I suspect Obama will nominate a very divisive person, perhaps someone that pushes all the buttons--a openly gay, Hispanic woman for example. That way, he can really make the selection of the next Supreme Court justice a huge part of the election. Think of the political rhetoric: Republicans war on gays, women, and minorities all rolled into one neat package. Might even be able to sway the Senate back to the Democrats. Do Republicans really want this?

That would almost be a brilliant political move.

I had also heard talk about Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General. Filibustering the nomination of a black female would equally be political suicide for the GOP Senate, especially considering her recent approval as Attorney General.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The American people did decide when they elected Obama president in 2012. He's in office and he gets to nominate someone.

I suspect Obama will nominate a very divisive person, perhaps someone that pushes all the buttons--a openly gay, Hispanic woman for example. That way, he can really make the selection of the next Supreme Court justice a huge part of the election. Think of the political rhetoric: Republicans war on gays, women, and minorities all rolled into one neat package. Might even be able to sway the Senate back to the Democrats. Do Republicans really want this?

I think he will either nominate a qualified African American woman, such as Loretta Lynch or Indian-American appeals court judge, Sri Srinivasan. Srinivansan was confirmed to the appeals court 97-0 in 2013. That means every Republican senator voted to confirm him. Seems it wold be hard to vote against him now. By the way he has a record of being pro-business.

I agree with IntheLight. It would be politically disastrous to vote against Lynch. No one with a fair hand says she is not qualified. Nor would it be easy to paint her as a liberal as her background is as a prosecuting attorney.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But you cited the article as it supports what you want. So, you wanted it to be true. It is not true and the author is not honest.

Citing the article does not necessarily mean that he agrees with it, especially every point.

Everyone needs to remember that Sekulow is an attorney and he is acting as an advocate for whoever is supporting him. He ignores what doesn't fit his argument and pushes the best argument he has - "Nominating a justice in an election year hasn't been done lately."[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Please start being honest. Thanks.

Let's not go down that road. I haven't seen any evidence that RevMitchell has been dishonest. I believe I disagree with him, but he has not shown any signs of being dishonest.

Citing an article with errors or twists does not make him morally culpable.

 

[Revmitchell]

The American people did decide when they elected Obama president in 2012. He's in office and he gets to nominate someone.

Sigh, Obama is no more elected than anyone else. Since we have a system of checks and balances the Senate must approve his choices. They are not compelled by the constitution to just rubber stamp them nor is there any specific boundaries in which they should make their decisions. Getting to nominate someone is one thing. Getting the Senate to approve them is altogether another thing.

 

[Zaac]

Sigh, Obama is no more elected than anyone else. Since we have a system of checks and balances the Senate must approve his choices. They are not compelled by the constitution to just rubber stamp them nor is there any specific boundaries in which they should make their decisions. Getting to nominate someone is one thing. Getting the Senate to approve them is altogether another thing.

Sure is. But if they play their hand wrong, which I believe they already have by coming out and saying that they would filibuster any nominee, it could be catastrophic in terms of the Presidential and Senate elections. The Dems only need to pick up 4 or 5 seats.

So if the President nominates someone (lie a Loretta Lynch) who should otherwise be confirmed if not for partisan obstructionism, it could be disastrous for the GOP.

 

[InTheLight]

Sigh, Obama is no more elected than anyone else. Since we have a system of checks and balances the Senate must approve his choices. They are not compelled by the constitution to just rubber stamp them nor is there any specific boundaries in which they should make their decisions. Getting to nominate someone is one thing. Getting the Senate to approve them is altogether another thing.

I understand all of this. You posted an article that said the next president should appoint Scalia's replacement. Let's cut to the chase--Do you oppose Obama nominating someone?

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand all of this. You posted an article that said the next president should appoint Scalia's replacement. Let's cut to the chase--Do you oppose Obama nominating someone?

It matters not. What I oppose is the GOP approving any single nomination the current regime puts up.

 

[InTheLight]

It matters not. What I oppose is the GOP approving any single nomination the current regime puts up.

My point is that Obama can and should nominate someone. Republicans don't have to approve his choice. Let the process play out. I don't see how anyone can expect Obama to pass up the opportunity to nominate a replacement.