With the unfortunate demise of Antonio Scalia, the conservative firewall on the Supreme Court is broken and will fall. It does not matter if a new Justice is appointed by Obama or if the Senate gets the internal fortitude (something that they have not had so far) to hold off all nominations until January, we predict the new Justice will be a liberal. This means the era of original intent has ended and the new era of a "living Constitution" is upon us.
We say this because in either case, Obama will demand that the Court cannot be hamstrung by having only eight Justices, that it prevents the Court from making important rulings and that the Senate is not doing its responsibility of "advise and consent" (mostly the latter) when it comes to the Court.
The death of Scalia removes the one main pillar against the living constitution. He was an orginialist who believed that the meaning of the Constitution was contained in the words and the beliefs of the writers of the document. We do also.
The idea that it can mean anything that the new Justices want it to mean, is abhorrent to Scalia and this writer. Words have meaning and what is currently in vogue should not be the law of the land.
Scalia's death also means that Obama will be able to appoint someone of his ilk to fill the vacancy and to change the direction of the country for decades. This will have damaging results.
For example, we believe that Obama wants to run for at least one more term and possibly more. If he is able to appoint and have a new Justice confirmed or if the Senate is able to hold him off, we believe, unfortunately, that any legal action to prevent him from running which will find its way to the Court, will be denied. In the case of a new Justice, they will vote with the man who put him/her on the Court.
If he is not able to get his choice on the Court, then Chief Justice Roberts will vote with the majority in what we believe will be a 5-3 decision that preventing someone from continuing to be President is--anti-American. We don't limit corporate CEOs from staying past 8 years, why should we do the same for the head of the nation? As long as the President can get elected, why should he/she be able to maintain that job? The 22nd Amendment would be invalidated on its face.
However, before the Court could rule on this novel approach, someone would have to be able to pass the "standing" issue. The only two who might would be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Either of them could bring suit as they would lose the right to be President if Obama ran again, Would they? Probably, if they were promised something.
Obama will run again, he will get elected again and having the Court stacked as it is or might be will enable this to occur. Scalia was the firewall, the bulkhead against such a move and would have been able to convince his other Justices that this was not Constitutional. However, the Conservative lion has died and now the inmates will start running the institution.
Conservative Tom
We say this because in either case, Obama will demand that the Court cannot be hamstrung by having only eight Justices, that it prevents the Court from making important rulings and that the Senate is not doing its responsibility of "advise and consent" (mostly the latter) when it comes to the Court.
The death of Scalia removes the one main pillar against the living constitution. He was an orginialist who believed that the meaning of the Constitution was contained in the words and the beliefs of the writers of the document. We do also.
The idea that it can mean anything that the new Justices want it to mean, is abhorrent to Scalia and this writer. Words have meaning and what is currently in vogue should not be the law of the land.
Scalia's death also means that Obama will be able to appoint someone of his ilk to fill the vacancy and to change the direction of the country for decades. This will have damaging results.
For example, we believe that Obama wants to run for at least one more term and possibly more. If he is able to appoint and have a new Justice confirmed or if the Senate is able to hold him off, we believe, unfortunately, that any legal action to prevent him from running which will find its way to the Court, will be denied. In the case of a new Justice, they will vote with the man who put him/her on the Court.
If he is not able to get his choice on the Court, then Chief Justice Roberts will vote with the majority in what we believe will be a 5-3 decision that preventing someone from continuing to be President is--anti-American. We don't limit corporate CEOs from staying past 8 years, why should we do the same for the head of the nation? As long as the President can get elected, why should he/she be able to maintain that job? The 22nd Amendment would be invalidated on its face.
However, before the Court could rule on this novel approach, someone would have to be able to pass the "standing" issue. The only two who might would be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Either of them could bring suit as they would lose the right to be President if Obama ran again, Would they? Probably, if they were promised something.
Obama will run again, he will get elected again and having the Court stacked as it is or might be will enable this to occur. Scalia was the firewall, the bulkhead against such a move and would have been able to convince his other Justices that this was not Constitutional. However, the Conservative lion has died and now the inmates will start running the institution.
Conservative Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.