Posted on 02/17/2016 10:22:30 AM PST by Kaslin
In Springfield, Ill., last week, President Obama commemorated the ninth anniversary of his bid for the White House. He admitted that one of his "few regrets" was his inability "to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics."
To conservative ears, Obama's comments fell somewhere between risible and infuriating. Obama has always done his best to demonize and marginalize his opponents. Either the president honestly cannot see that, or he's cynically pretending that the fault lies entirely with his critics. If only there were some way to figure out whether he's sincere.
Well, let no one say the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward second chances.
Just a few days after Obama's remarks, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Scalia was not only one of the most gifted writers and intellectuals to ever don the robe, he was also a founding father of the originalist counterrevolution and the elder statesman of the court's conservative wing.
So it is no wonder that conservatives should grow instantly queasy at the thought that Obama will replace him with yet another high priest of the cult of the "living Constitution."
Already, partisans are sharpening their spears for what could easily be the meanest and most polarizing nomination battle in modern American history. It will get ugly, very ugly. Congress will grind to a halt. Interest groups will pour millions into the effort on both sides. Careers will be ruined. Public trust will plunge even deeper, if that's even possible.
Some commentators have already moved to DEFCON 1. Within 48 hours of the news that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would block any nominee Obama sent his way, New York Times editorial writer Brent Staples opined on Twitter, "In a nation built on slavery, white men propose denying the first black president his constitutional right to name Supreme Court nominee." Never mind that this would be Obama's third such appointment; Staples' tweet is but a drop in the river of poison to come.
Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Sen. Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the court for the time being.
Such diplomacy would go a long way to prevent -- or at least reduce -- further polarization and meanness in our politics.
Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he'll pick a liberal whom he'll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote. He'll also probably pick a minority, making it that much easier for supporters such as Staples to paint opposition as bigotry.
But I don't blame him for wanting to get his pick on the bench. If I were president, I would seize the opportunity to appoint a like-minded justice. So would pretty much any Republican or any other Democratic president. On the other hand, I don't fetishize bipartisanship and unity the way Obama does -- if only rhetorically.
Republicans arguably erred when they implied that Obama shouldn't name a replacement for Scalia. The president has every right to do so. And the Senate has every right to withhold its consent. It's really as simple as that.
On the Democratic side, some are claiming that the GOP would be violating a sacred and inviolable norm by preventing another Obama appointee. That's ridiculous on its face. Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork's last name into a verb back in 1987.
As my National Review colleague Jim Geraghty has pointed out, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) gave a blistering speech in 2007 vowing to do everything he could to prevent President George W. Bush from appointing any more conservatives to the bench. Schumer said John Roberts and Samuel Alito were quite enough for one president. Switch the names in that speech from Roberts, Alito and Bush to Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Obama, and you have McConnell's position now.
Any claim that Republicans are the first to break the peace is as absurd as the suggestion that Obama is blameless for the polarization and meanness in our politics.
If he picked a center of right (i.e. Constitutional leaning) justice, the left would rip him to shreds. They don’t want compromise.... and, neither does he.
Hey, Rats! I'd be more pleasant if you took your d@mn hand out of my pocket.
btw, my ideal Justice, if his health was great, would be Mark Levin.
Ted Cruz would be great, too, if he fails to win the nomination.
He doesn’t.
He is Saul Alinsky through and through.
Obama is a radical leftist. Unless you are also a radical leftist then he is to be opposed at all times.
Obama should nominate Bill Pryor of Alabama.
He’ll get that approved right away.
Whoever he picks, rest assured that it will be the most odious, America-hating leftist he can find.
Ward Churchill still needs a gig, doesn’t he?
My thought exactly
Obama will not attend Scalia’s funeral.
You don’t really think that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave would nominate someone that is pro life and pro second amendment, do you?
What I am reading is that he is obviously pro life, so there is no way that arrogant pos will nominate him. He will nominate the most left-wing judge he can find. You can count on it.
That is no surprise. Who would want him there anyway
Interesting fight we are going to be watching. Probably one of Clay v Liston proportions. I cannot help but wonder who will end up being Clay and who will be Liston in this fight. Someone will not answer the bell in the seventh or earlier, I think we all know who, but............................
You are right. No way that Obama would do it.
However, a proactive majority leader would recognize that Obama is ignoring the ‘advise’ portion of the Senate’s power to ‘advise and consent’ and immediately send a list with THEIR advice on who to nominate, AND make it public in the media.
Then Obama would have to TURN DOWN their names, and that would legitimize the Senate labeling that behavior confrontational. They could then stall for part of the 11 months pointing out why the names Obama does send are not nearly as good as the ones they advised him to send (their power), so they will reject those and ask him again to send over someone from their list.
This point about liberalism needs to be drilled into the heads of everyone on this board and those elected officials who claim to be our representatives.
To use a Star Trek reference, liberalism is like the Borg. They will keep coming and coming and coming and coming. They don't quit.
If we had a CONgress that understood the Constitution, and lived up to their oath of office, and actually exercised their Authority over the Judiciary, none of this would matter.
Unfortunately, we Don’t
You are not telling me anything new
Former Senator George Mitchell was almost picked by Clinton for the Supreme Court...Clinton talked him into agreeing to continue to work on the Arab-Israeli "peace process" (to no avail, of course). He is a liberal but widely respected, and is the same age as Scalia (born 1933). As a former Senator he could probably get confirmed. Because of his age he wouldn't be there too many years--so even though he would be part of a liberal 5-4 majority it wouldn't be for a long time, whereas anyone else Obama picks, if confirmed, is likely to be there for 25 or 30 years.
Obama obviously won't pick an old guy, even if he's an Arab (since he's a non-Muslim Arab).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.