Justice Scalia’s Passing is a Time for Choosing for Senate Republicans.
Today Americans learned the tragic news of the passing of Justice Scalia. For the last three decades, Justice Scalia has been a lightning rod on the court. He has been a vocal defender of a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, who was known for his wit, and willingness to speak his mind. Vilified by the left, and loved by the right, he has been one of the longest reminders of President Reagan’s legacy.
As a confirmation hearing approaches for President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia, the Senate Republican Majority faces its moment of truth.
“Every time the Supreme Court defines another right in the Constitution it reduces the scope of democratic debate.”
 ~Justice Scalia
In the 70’s, the progressives resorted to the Supreme Court to pass a radical agenda for the country that they knew they couldn’t pass democratically. It eliminated the ability for the country and states to figure out what was best, and adapt over time, and as a result polarized the nation. Since then the question for every judicial confirmation has been whether the nominee will support the left’s agenda, or defend the constitution.
In 1987, the tension erupted to the surface in the confirmation over Justice Bork. President Reagan nominated Justice Bork to replace, Justice Powell, one of the “swing votes†on the court.  Even before Justice Powell’s resignation, liberal Senators and interest groups made it clear that they expected his replacement to “maintain the balance of the court.â€
Within an hour of Bork’s nomination, Sen. Kennedy took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to declare, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.â€
Sen. Biden chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee, lead a campaign of misinformation, halftruths, and distortions against a judicial scholar they disagreed with. The term “Borking†was coined, and in a rare action, the Senate voted down President Reagan’s appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. (Only the year before, Antonin Scalia has been approved by a vote of 98-0 in the U.S. Senate.)
“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”
~Justice Scalia
In The Ugliness Started With Bork, Joe Nicera opined in The New York Times “The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics… The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust–the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one.† Nocera cited Democratic activist Ann Lewis who acknowledged that if Bork’s nomination “were carried out as an internal Senate debate we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose.”
Anthony Kennedy was appointed, and the progressives received their justice.
In 2000, President George W. Bush ran for president promising to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. Almost immediately, he began delivering with his nominations for circuit court vacancies. From Day One, the left attacked every move, holding up nearly a dozen nominees for the bench. Battles over Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, and others dominated the early Bush presidency as Sen. Schumer and others gave President Bush one of the lowest Circuit Court confirmation rates.
Debates over the “nuclear option†and “The Gang of 14†resulted as Senators worked to resolve the logjam.
When President Bush appointed Justice Alito to the Supreme Court, the vote was nearly a partisan vote, 58-42. The Democrats made it clear that deference to president’s appointments was gone.
“What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?”
~Justice Scalia
Ironically, when President Bush was considering who to nominate to the Supreme Court, Sen. Biden brought back up the issue of “balance on the court.†On Face the Nation on July 3, 2005, he stated, “The bottom line is that whenever there has been a balance in the court that would change with the replacement of a nominee, the nominee has been more closely looked at relating to that balance.â€
With the radical shift we have seen from President Obama on the 4th Circuit and other lower courts, we know how serious they left is about maintaining balance on the courts. Just like the left tells the left not to talk about social issues as they steam roll through with their radical agenda, “balance on the court†is merely another way to silence the right as progressives march forward. No one seriously expects the president to nominate someone in the “mold of Scalia†to replace Scalia.
To honor Justice Scalia, the Senate needs to make sure President Obama is unable to replace the justice. Any nominee from President Obama should be stalled, and thoroughly exposed as a tool to advance the left’s undermining of the constitution.
At a time when America’s institutions are under attack, the left is finishing their assault on the document which founded and binds our nation, the U.S. Constitution. As the rule of law is traded for the rule of five Justices, the existence of the Republic is at stake.
“If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”
~Justice Scalia
Shortly after the news of Justice Scalia’s passing broke, Sen. McConnell, Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio, and Carly Fiorina released statements calling for the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement.
Talk is cheap, and actions are what matter. So far the Republican Senate Majority has been impotent in stalling President Obama’s assault on the courts. For all the statements about Eric Holder’s radical agenda, the Senate approved and even more radical replacement in Loretta Lynch as U.S. Attorney General. While the Democrats were willing to play hard ball with President Bush’s nominees, Senate Republicans have shown much less spine.
While they have refused every other opportunity, Senate Republicans must draw a line in the sand here.
Let’s have the debate over the role of the U.S. Constitution, and the future of the country.
Who will take to the floor of the Senate when it opens this week, and make it clear that no Obama nominee to replace Scalia will pass out of the chamber?
Will Sen. McConnell show the country his understanding of Senate rules and procedures?
Will Sens. Cruz and Rubio show their leadership in the Senate, and make the nomination about the vital role of the courts?
In 2004, President Bush campaigned hard talking about the role of the courts. It has now been forced into this election. Let’s ask every presidential candidate about their legal philosophy. While Democrats have had a perfect record with their nominations, Republican nominees have been a very mixed bag, which has created devastating consequences for the nation.
We need to nominate a candidate who will be more willing to spend political capital on Supreme Court nominees than President Reagan was, and we need to have the debate about whether we still are a Constitutional Republic all the way to November.
This is the moment of truth for Senate Republicans. What do they value, and how hard are they willing to fight for it?
This is also a moment of choosing for the future of this country. Let us honor Justice Scalia’s memory by fighting for the Constitution as hard as he fought for it in his three decades on the Supreme Court.
11 comments
We are where we are with the Judicial Branch because the Legislative Branch abdicated its authority long ago. The Judicial has too much power because the Legislative has been the Uniparty more interested in funneling money to their friends (and, ultimately, to themselves) than the messy business of running the country (or state). They’ve left the dirty work to the Judicial.
In this case, there should be no appointment. It is payback time for the Democrat-held Senate changing the rules. We already have 2 Obama uber-liberal Supreme Court Justices. A third would be devastating.
But I have no faith in Senate Republicans. My guess is that they will stall until the election and see who wins. If they like who wins the Presidency, then they will hold out until the inauguration. If not, they will cut a deal and push through another Obama appointment.
I half hope against hope that Ginsberg will seize the moment to retire and create a stalemate.
Scalia’s death is a tragedy for the United States. He was the only one with the intellectual ability and backbone to stand up to the horrorshow that the Left is making out of the US legal system. That legal system can be summed up as follows:
The Constitution is what Liberals say it is.
Liberals have left black letter law in the dust. They are not content with following a regularized process involving actually going to the trouble of legislating to achieve their goals. They will use court made law (Roe v Wade) or executive action (Obama’s amnesties) to achieve their ends. This is very dangerous and anti-democratic. Ironic that huh?
The amnesties are particularly heinous. They are essentially saying that the Executive has the power to do whatever he deems without legislative action. He has the power to nullify law then as that is what the amnesties do. It nullifies the regularized process and also the labor aspects of immigration as Obama was gearing up to award work authorization to those amnestied. And this is for? The political gain of his party.
Scalia was the person to stop that. Don’t look to that chicken__t Roberts or Kennedy. Like their big government GOPe sponsors, they will find a way to give Obama his amnesty. Maybe amnesty is really a tax?
God bless Scalia.
Excellent article. It is nice to see someone accepting of the political realities of the issue. This issue is going to spill over into the Senate elections. If this isn’t handled correctly the Senate could switch which would be a disaster.
Scalia’s passing is very sad, … who will stand up for the Constitution now ?
Thomas.
Good article. My first thought about Justice Scalia’s death was the Senate Republicans would cave and confirm Obama’s nomination. (How many voted to confirm Obama’s previous appointments?) My second thought was about the current cases that will result in 4/4 decisions that lock in lousy results from lower courts (albeit, some good decisions might be locked in). My last thought was how the Republicans totally blew the opportunity to scale back Federal power when they controlled Congress and Presidency between 2001 and 2006. Imagine if they had amended the Clean Air Act to say it didn’t cover CO2 or required the EPA to obtain search warrants before they came on a person’s property. Instead they banned the incandescent light bulb and named Post Offices after their favorite person. It’s not that I believe most Republicans in Congress are liberal. I believe most are clueless and don’t understand the threat from the Left. I offer John Boehner as an example. May God bless Antonin Scalia’s soul. I’m sure we’ll miss his wisdom and wit.
Republicans did not control the Senate from 2001 to 2003. And second, without 60 votes in the Senate, you can’t do much, unless you wish to play the so-called nuclear option card.
McConnell says he will not allow an Obama pick to be confirmed. He can show he is serious by making sure the Senate is in pro forma session ( so that an interim appointment cannot be made) until Obama is gone for good.
This can and should be done and will be for me a likely tell if this is just another McConnell moment of chest thumping prior to his typical abject surrender or if he has somehow found some courage to stand for the American people. The tradition during my lifetime, by the way for both parties, is for Congress NOT to support any life time appointments during a lame duck presidency. Not that those traditions mean much any more in the era of Obama.
Perhaps Justice Roush, supported by Delegate Albo; or, Judge Melvin, supported by Leader Norment.
Which would you choose?
Once we stray outside the words and clear intent of The Constitution, no one is safe … except the tyrants who temporarily sit atop the government.