Now they are giving President Obama a new right. As reported by Huffington Post, â€œFormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fiercely defended President Barack Obama’s constitutional right to appoint a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.â€
PoliticusUSA says, â€œDemocratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed Republicans for their absurd denial of President Obama’s basic constitutional right to replace the deceased Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.â€
The intended impact of the language is clear: Denying Obama on his nomination to replace Justice Scalia is violating his â€œconstitutional right.â€ The GOP is therefore against constitutional rights. That certainly markets the issue to the left and low-information voters better than the Senateâ€™s having the constitutional check on Obamaâ€™s power.
Federalist Paper No. 76 addresses presidential appointments. It mentions no such â€œright,â€ but instead â€œthe power of appointment.â€ It even calls appointments a â€œduty,â€ but combined with the â€œapprobationâ€ of the Senate, which the Constitution refers to as â€œconsent.â€Â Writes Federalist 76 author Alexander Hamilton, â€œThe possibility of rejection [of the nominee] would be a strong motive to care in proposing.â€
The governing â€œrightsâ€ of kings were deemed â€œdivine.â€ That notion was rejected in the creation of the American constitutional republic. Through the Constitution, the people granted power to government.
Government has power. The people have rights. The Constitution created checks on government power to protect the rights of people. Thatâ€™s the American formula. That concept is lost on Obama, Hillary, Bernie and their cohorts in the liberal press.
The fight over the replacement for the late Justice Scalia is indeed about protecting rights, but those of the people, not those concocted by the left for more unhinged government power.
It is also a fight about protecting the rule of law over government. Obama has consistently demonstrated his contempt for that, and it is likely that an Obama nominee would fail in the judicial duty to properly adjudicate the law governing government, the Constitution.