Republicans Choose Wrong Tactic on Supreme Court Nomination

Since the hours after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Presidential candidates and Senators have been warning President Obama not to bother with naming a nominee for the court.  This is a mistake.

Sure, we have every reason to believe that Obama will name someone who will tip the balance on the court to the Left.  Look at who he has already placed on the court (Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Solicitor General Elena Kagan) and you understand he'll want the biggest liberal he can find.  I wouldn't be surprised if his staff is trying to find a handicapped, black, Muslim, illegal alien transexual to nominate!


It is very hard and unusual to write something that isn't terribly negative about Obama and constitutional rights, but here goes.  Obama has a constitutional right and duty to nominate someone.  It wouldn't seem possible with Obama's record of trampling all over the constitution, but Republicans have given Obama the high road on constitutional principles.  The Presidential candidates and Republican Senators are making a tactical mistake with their obstruction.

Of course the Democrats supporting Obama's constitutional duty to nominate a justice are complete hypocrites.  From Biden to Schumer they all have attempted or wished they could have obstructed Republican presidents from making nominations; not to mention their vicious attacks on past Republican nominees.  Now they talk of the Constitution and delineated powers.  Give me a break.

I personally want to see another constitutionalist like Scalia.  However, you know the saying: elections have consequences.  The people elected the most liberal president in history and he is now going to (attempt to) nominate his third appointee. And I think if another liberal is seated on the court it would be a complete disaster for our country.

What is the Senate's duty? Well, the President nominates, but has this power only“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”  It has been the fashion in recent years for the Congress to acquiesce to the Executive.  They haven't yet - Democrats or Republicans - given up their authority in "advice and consent" on Supreme Court Justices. Thank goodness.

Now here is the critical thing.  The Senate can and should do its duty, and they are not obligated to confirm. Their obligation is to fulfill the "advice and consent" role.  So Obama nominates a liberal -who disdains the constraints of the Constitution - and the Senate can then consider if such a nominee should be approved. They vote such a nominee down and fulfill there duty.

Wouldn't this be obstruction, or more grid lock you ask?  No, obstruction is the current tactic. And yes, this is grid lock - just as the Framers of the Constitution intended.  I don't know if they had the same phrase back then, but they most definitely hardwired this sort of situation. By the careful wording of the President "shall nominate" and the Senate "advice and consent" the Framers constructed a system where large differences (ideological, political, or other) would lead to stalemates.  This is much better than one branch running roughshod over the other.

We have a huge divide in vision for the country between the President and Congress right now.  It's probably a good representation of the differences that exist in the country.  I trust the Constitution to handle the grid lock.

Now, if I could only trust the Republicans in the Senate.