SCotUS
Sat Feb 13 17:41:19 EST 2016
I just heard that US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (aged 79) has died on a hunting trip in Texas.
Politically, he was a Reagan (Republican) appointee, and he opposed abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action.
Obama suddenly has an opportunity to nominate Scalia's replacement - doubtless someone with a different stance on those issues. This is not a political slam-dunk, because appointments require approval by the Senate, and many Republicans have spent the last 7 years opposing all-things-Obama.
The Republican Presidential candidates are all saying Obama should leave the position open for the next President to fill - hoping that the next President will be a Republican. (I.e. you (Democrat) should give up your chance to influence the American future so we (Republicans) can do it, even though we have conflicting views on what that future should be.) You'd never hear them make that request of a Republican President with 1 year left, never mind the problem of tie decisions. (I just get so much hypocrisy from some of the Republican positions/attitudes....)
This is one of those points of our system of government that is not grasped by those who think it doesn't matter who the president is (and who therefore don't bother to vote). Even though the Executive and Legislative branches can be in gridlock, the 3rd branch, the Judicial, makes (hopefully independent) pronouncements. The Judicial branch can be overridden when the other branches can agree to do that, but lately there's very little they've been able to agree on. And Supreme-Court Justices can serve very long terms (mean 6,112 days (16.7 years), longest 13,358 days (36 years)), so when a President has the opportunity to appoint one (or more) the effects can be very long lived. (Ageing justices have been known to delay their retirements if the current President's nominees' views will differ from their own.) The Republicans have control of the Senate, so they have the ability to block the President's nominations, but this kind of obstructionism will be patently obvious.
With a vacancy on the Court, it is likely to be deadlocked on upcoming cases on abortion, affirmative action, and immigration. And the replacement could change the Court's direction for decades. The Republican "core" are still reeling from the Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Clearly anathema to Republican "values", but sometimes the Court just has to base its decisions on logic, and I've still never heard a sane (i.e. non-paranoid/fundamentalist) reason to forbid gay marriage.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/798514.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
I just heard that US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (aged 79) has died on a hunting trip in Texas.
Politically, he was a Reagan (Republican) appointee, and he opposed abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action.
Obama suddenly has an opportunity to nominate Scalia's replacement - doubtless someone with a different stance on those issues. This is not a political slam-dunk, because appointments require approval by the Senate, and many Republicans have spent the last 7 years opposing all-things-Obama.
The Republican Presidential candidates are all saying Obama should leave the position open for the next President to fill - hoping that the next President will be a Republican. (I.e. you (Democrat) should give up your chance to influence the American future so we (Republicans) can do it, even though we have conflicting views on what that future should be.) You'd never hear them make that request of a Republican President with 1 year left, never mind the problem of tie decisions. (I just get so much hypocrisy from some of the Republican positions/attitudes....)
This is one of those points of our system of government that is not grasped by those who think it doesn't matter who the president is (and who therefore don't bother to vote). Even though the Executive and Legislative branches can be in gridlock, the 3rd branch, the Judicial, makes (hopefully independent) pronouncements. The Judicial branch can be overridden when the other branches can agree to do that, but lately there's very little they've been able to agree on. And Supreme-Court Justices can serve very long terms (mean 6,112 days (16.7 years), longest 13,358 days (36 years)), so when a President has the opportunity to appoint one (or more) the effects can be very long lived. (Ageing justices have been known to delay their retirements if the current President's nominees' views will differ from their own.) The Republicans have control of the Senate, so they have the ability to block the President's nominations, but this kind of obstructionism will be patently obvious.
With a vacancy on the Court, it is likely to be deadlocked on upcoming cases on abortion, affirmative action, and immigration. And the replacement could change the Court's direction for decades. The Republican "core" are still reeling from the Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Clearly anathema to Republican "values", but sometimes the Court just has to base its decisions on logic, and I've still never heard a sane (i.e. non-paranoid/fundamentalist) reason to forbid gay marriage.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/798514.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]