If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway

Washington Post ^ | 02/14/2016 | Linda Hirshman

[SeekAndFind]

After Justice Antonin Scalia's death Saturday at 79, the Supreme Court is now evenly divided between four liberal justices and four conservatives, even with Anthony Kennedy's occasional swings. What a moment for Scalia to depart: The court faces a wild array of closely divided decisions. It is an election year. And President Obama has stacked the lower circuit courts with Democrats. Obama has been chewing on his legacy for months. Fate has handed him the opportunity of any presidency -- to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.

Scalia weighed heavily on the conservative tilt of the current court, registering as more conservative even than other Republican justices in every field except on international and defense issues. There is no other justice whose replacement would more profoundly affect the court's orientation. The court's docket this term shows a clear intent to rule on some of the most contentious issues in the society: abortion, unionization, presidential power, affirmative action, political representation. Nothing in the presidential election in the fall matters more than the ability to shape the court. Now everyone should know that, including an incumbent who once taught constitutional law.

Any nominee, of course, would have to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Leaders there, and also most GOP presidential candidates, are already making clear that they intend to block Obama. But they may not realize that leaving Scalia's seat vacant plays right into his hands.

The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example.

[Trueblackman]

More administration propaganda, don’t give us what we want and we win anyway.

[DeathBeforeDishonor1]

Propoganda.

[Theodore R.]

What is unclear is how soon Loveable Lindsey, Susan Collins, et al get KY’s McC to switch his stand and bring up the nomination of Obama’s choice.

[FlingWingFlyer]

...to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.

Silly me. I thought the men in black used the U.S. Constitution to make their decisions. I know Scalia did. The Supreme Court is a fraud.

[digger48]

But a 4-4 on the immigration lawsuit will mean the lower court ruling stands. Obama loses that one. For now.

Or am I misreading things?

[dp0622]

dems are gonna throw the abortion/gay marriage and any other issue they think might add a vote or two at the independents.

[Regulator]

Yup. The hustle starts early.

[jessduntno]

You are correct.

[joesbucks]

That’s why we want him to sit on his hands. He nominates, especially someone who normally could be approved, and our side is toast. God’s timing dealt us a bad hand.

[digger48]

"Have we got a Gang for you..."

[Dilbert San Diego]

I don’t get this. So to avoid 4-4 tie votes, the GOP should allow obama to appoint a liberal justice, which then results in 5-4 decisions for the liberal sides of these cases?? Why is this better for the GOP?? I dont get this reasoning.

[Lazamataz]

Well, the author is right. Simply put, Scalia’s death sucks.

[spintreebob]

If Obama nominates an extremist, the Republicans can block the nomination with no harm. That assumes the Republicans find a better strategist and spokesperson than McConnell.

If Obama sees the trap he can set and nominates an alleged moderate Republican, or a Jane Harmon/Evan Bayh type moderate then it will be much harder for the Republicans to oppose that nominee.

My advice: Speak softly. Carry a big stick. But keep the stick concealed if possible. Dont go around loud-mouthing.

[MarvinStinson]

Chief Justice John Roberts, who in matters entirely internal to the court like this wields some extra power, is known for his concern for institutional prestige.

Thats a winner.

[MarvinStinson]

Washington Post reasoning is commie reasoning.

[joesbucks]

Maybe. Alito and Thomas are the only assured decisions. The others could vacilate.

[backwoods-engineer]

Our Republic is in severe jeopardy today because of Justice Scalia's death yesterday.

I believe Obama will appoint Scalia's successor, and that McConnell and the Senate will confirm anyone Obama wants, including the odious Eric Holder.

Imagine a 5-4 Supreme Court decision interpreting the 2nd Amendment to ban the mere possession of handguns. It could happen. MILLIONS of us would not comply, of course. Any attempt to force us would lead to mass death.

But this one event, Scalia's death, could be the inflection point of the downfall of the American Republic, and quite possibly the traceable initiation of the 2nd American Civil War.

[onona]

How do we get rid of lifetime appointments ?

[LostInBayport]

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies.

So this "writer" then opines that any cases already voted on by the nine should be discarded if Scalia's vote is one of five in favor or against.

Basically, she's saying that since the jurist died after voting but before opinions have been finalized, his vote should not count. Just another liberal columnist looking for a way to rig the game. Would she be saying that if Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg had been the one who died?