Obama to nominate Scalia successor ‘in due time’
ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Barack Obama speaks to reporters about the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Omni Rancho Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016. Scalia, 79, was found dead Saturday morning at a private residence in the Big Bend area of West Texas.
WASHINGTON >> President Barack Obama declared Saturday night he would seek to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, charging into a heated and likely prolonged election-year fight with Republicans. Obama said a nomination was “bigger than any one party.”
With a half-dozen or more major cases and the ideological tilt of the court in the balance, Obama said he pIanned “to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time.”
The president said the decision was about democracy and “the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned.”
Obama’s remarks answered Republicans who wasted little time Saturday night, as news of Scalia’s unexpected death spread, arguing that Obama should leave the lifetime appointment to his successor.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
His position was echoed by several Republicans seeking the GOP presidential nomination. Sen. Ted Cruz said conservatives could not risk losing influence on the court “for a generation.” Donald Trump urged Senate Republicans to “delay, delay, delay.”
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton told a Democratic dinner in Denver that Obama “is president of the United States until Jan 20, 2017. That is a fact my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not.”
“Let’s get on with it,” said Democrat Bernie Sanders, arguing that the Senate should vote on whoever Obama nominates.
The court has already heard — but not decided — big cases involving immigration, abortion, affirmative action and public employee unions. With many cases recently decided by 5-4 margins, with Scalia leading the conservative majority, the vacancy could have major repercussions, both legally and in the presidential race.
The nomination fight in the Senate could determine the tenor of much of Obama’s final year in office — and ricochet through the campaign to replace him. Obama, who already has little goodwill on the Hill, faces stiff opposition from Republicans hungry for the chance to further tip the court to the right. A confirmation process often takes more than two months, but could be drawn out longer by the Republican-led Senate.
Obama said the Senate should have enough time for a fair hearing and timely vote.
Senate Democrats made clear that they would work vigorously to keep Republicans from trying to run out the clock. They quickly offered counterarguments to Republican statements that the decision should rest with the next president.
“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”
Democrats pointed out that Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year — 1988 — the final year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Kennedy had been nominated in November 1987 after the Senate rejected Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg bowed out.
Democrats also argued that waiting for the next president in January 2017 would leave the court without a ninth justice for more than the remainder of Obama’s term as Senate confirmation would not be immediate.
The court faces a crowded docket of politically charged cases that are certain to resonate in the presidential campaign on issues such as immigration, abortion, affirmative action, climate change, labor unions and Obama’s health care law. Decisions were expected in late spring and early summer on whether the president could shield up to 5 million immigrants living in the United States illegally from deportation.
The immediate impact of Scalia death means that the justices will now be divided 4-4 in many of those cases. If there is a tie vote, then the lower court opinion remains in place.
A Senate looking at a limited legislative agenda in an election year now faces one of the most consequential decisions for the venerable body. Not only will voters choose the next president, majority control of the Senate is at stake in November, with Republicans clinging to control and concerned about the fate of some half dozen GOP senators running for re-election in states that Obama won.
Scalia’s replacement would be Obama’s third Supreme Court appointment — joining Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. A short list of possible replacements includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sri Srinivasan and Patricia Ann Millet.
Srinivasan was confirmed by the Senate 97-0 in 2013. He has served under Democratic and Republican administrations and was a law clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Millet has argued dozens cases before the Supreme Court.
Another potential nominee is Paul J. Watford, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Watford, an African-American, served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from 1995 to 1996.
Not all the Republicans said Obama should skip a nomination fight.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is positioning himself as a moderate, said Obama has the power to nominate and should use it.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich lamented, “I just wish we hadn’t run so fast at the politics.”
51 responses to “Obama to nominate Scalia successor ‘in due time’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It would be more appropriate to MOURN HIS PASSING and CELEBRATE HIS LIFE, than to immerse ourselves in heartless POLITICAL POO-POO’S AND PROPOGANDA, at this time…
Yes, and look at the fine examples below in this commentary thread. Is it any wonder how polarized this country has become?! The liberal democrats, the self described party of “tolerance” are already gunning for a fight to replace a conservative SCJ with a person of their choosing, never mind that Scalia’s body is still warm. This is the legacy that Barak Obama will be best known for. The fight, for his followers, for his party. Not any positive accomplishments for ALL Americans. But his tearing apart of an entire country because, as he himself said, his desire to transform our country into something else, other than what was created by our founding fathers. Scalia’s efforts during his tenure on the SCOTUS, was to remind Americans on a daily basis what our constitution is all about, as an originalist. Those who may believe the Constitution should change over time…that belief may be in error if it isn’t ‘your’ time, right? This reality only underscores why Scalia’s position is the right one for all Americans. You don’t have to agree with his opinions. But the idea that the “rules should be changed” periodically to accommodate the whims of political emotions, has NEVER served either political party over the long haul.
Actually, it was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of the “party of no” who immediately said “NO” to selecting a new Justice while Obama is still in office. Obama stated his position on the matter AFTER McConnell’s pronouncement.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing out the commenter’s ongoing lies.
Did you expect him to say “YES”?
I think President Obama got A LOT of help dividing the country from the self-righteous GOP dominated Congress.
LOL: you’re pointing below at the intolerance of “liberal Democrats?” I’m sure that Winston, Moilee, Sarge22 and — definitely — YOU would be curious to know why they’re (you’re) being called liberal Democrats. They appear to be the only ones needing to wipe spittle off of their monitors.
Wake up republicans. It is Obama’s job to appoint a new SC judge. Now you can hold up his nomination but guess what? If Hillary becomes president with a democratic senate, she might just nominate Obama for SC judge. So go ahead and delay, delay and delay. Will make the democratic victory in November that much sweeter. I don’t think you will be happy with the nominee Bernie comes up with. So bring it on republicans. 🙂
So true (your first sentence). And it’s the Senate’s constitutional duty to approve the appointment– or not. I believe “not” will be the winner. Of course, Obama may make a recess appointment since, until 22 Feb, since the Senate is out of session, but this would be a pyrrhic victory since such an act would incite and unify the republican base to the point that the odds of a republican presidential victory would be significantly improved.
So, the bottom line is that Obama is stuck, can’t make a recess appointment with out jeopardizing election of a democrat president (and giving up the chance of a lifetime supreme court nominee) nor will he ever get any appointment through the republican senate during his remaining term.
Poor, poor Barry, stuck on the horns of a dilemma.
Republican refusal to confirm a qualified appointee could result in jeopardizing the election of a republican president too Winston. It’s not a one way street.
The greatest risk to Republicans, by far, will be to rubber stamp a left wing appointee by Obama, any Obama appointee, for that matter. Such is the state of our politics and such is the state of Obama’s abuse of executive power.
I agree. Obama will appoint a well qualified man or woman who should be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans will catch a lot of flack for not doing their job and ignoring the good appointment. It’s really the best chance to get an excellent justice for the court.
Dream on ! For anyone supporting “The Socialist Sickle and Hammer” guy? You_ are _going BACKWARDS! History proves this:Socialist Governments Always FAIL! This “One Size Fits All” stuff is merely a Pipe Dream and full of Baloney. Bernie’s tactic is to entice the Live in the basement college students.
FREE Stuff!Is Unsustainable. Not even Wall street and all of the U.S. Millionaires will be enough to support Bernie agenda…This is a Dream!
Yes!Boots. Indeed ,you do need to “Wake -Up”…. I like America just the way it is. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!Freedom and Opportunity for All!
Peter, is there any potential candidate for the Supreme Court who would allow to place his/her name up for nomination knowing the toxic relationship between President Obama and the Republican controlled Senate. The Republican Senate already sent their message to the White House. Any appointment by President Obama will be dead on arrival. Also, Peter, the Democrats in the past, when they controlled the Senate, has done the same against the Republican president. The Democrats in Congress even passed a Resolution in 1960 that no appointments must be made in the year of a Presidential election cycle.
That’s interesting…I’ve never heard that before, about the resolution in 1960. Will look that up.
You’re lying, of course, about what the Congress did – as you always do in your comments. It would be a breath of fresh air if you could carve out just one day – just one – to write things that are true and make sense. Even if what you wrote actually happened (it didn’t, of course) it would not matter because the Congress cannot, by resolution, alter anything written in the Constitution. What the Congress actually resolved (again … not that it matters) is that the President should not make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court during an election year.
Klastri, sorry, you lose again. Many in the media has picked up on the 1960 Resolution by the Democrats and recess appointments. We all understand that the U.S. Senate is Republican controlled and probably remain so through the 2016 election and any appointment to the Supreme Court by Pres. Obama will never be confirmed. Just placing the facts on the table.
You’re making things up again. Probably because you don’t understand what a recess appointment is. You are really pathetic.
Klastri, yes, I do know the process of Presidential recess appointments and its consiquences. Thank you.
Obama is in office for four years. He’s not a three-year president. Because it’s a presidential year doesn’t mean that he should not do what he has been elected to serve.
You are correct, of course. The Republicans may violate their oaths by failing to uphold the Constitution, but the President should not.
Laughable. The constitution gives the senate a power equal to Obama. He must appoint a nominee acceptable to the Republican senate. That’s not a possibility. A refusal to do so is completely constitutional.
Wiliki, no GOP leader is saying that President Obama cannot put forward his appointed candidate as a Justice of the Supreme Court. He has that power under the Constitution. Also, under the Constitution in the separation of powers, the Senate has the power on advise and consent.
“The Democrats in Congress even passed a Resolution in 1960 that no appointments must be made in the year of a Presidential election cycle.” Then how did Ronald Reagan get to nominate Anthony Kennedy for the Supreme Court in 1988, the year of a presidential election?
Because it didn’t happen. The commenter was lying, as he always does.
PoiDoggy, pls check out President Reagan’s nominee’s of Robert Bork on July 1, 1987 (Rejected by the Senate), Douglas Ginsburg the second nominee (Withdrew his nomination), then Anthony Kennedy, the third nominee on November 11, 1987 (approved by the Senate on February 11, 1988). All three for the same Supreme Court vacancy.
Wrong Reagan did it in his last year and the Democrats confirmed co Kenedy.Wake UP!
So S.Res 334 regarding recess appointments never happened? The nomination didn’t happen in his last year anyway. Do the walk before the talk..
I would be something if Obama were to consider Bernie for the appointment.
Obama is not smart enough to be a SCJ.
I NOMINATE : “”CHIEF JUDGE””RONALD IBARRA”” (one of the very few honest and non politically-maligned Judges in Hawaii)
What are you talking about and why would you lie like this? What judges (in the majority according to you – ridiculous) are dishonest or politically- “maligned (SIC)” and why? You never – not ever – have any actual knowledge about anything you write about here. Never.
Angry man needs a time out.
I’m not angry. I just don’t like liars.
Maybe Barry’s being a bit too Hastey!! Cripes! Justice Antonin Scalia just died!Guy’s not even in the grave yet. And Obama is already thinking of selecting another Supreme Court Justice!….Talk about waiting for the INK to Dry!let’s first think about his family,give him a proper send-off,and reflect on his life…….instead of rushing to select someone to further your agenda….this is what it’s all about folks ! Transparency?? Yep! We can read you like a Book.IMUA
Do you know what “in due time” means?
Don’t just read the AP story..Expand your Mental Horizons,Research before you speak!There are many media outlets supporting the President expeditious actions > Names he already had chosen!”In Due time”….Ha!ha!ha!yeah Right, Sure
That’s your comeback?! LOL.
Yes, let’s wait and let President Trump pick his own SC justice. The end of the world can’t get here soon enough.
Yes. Republicans came out way too early in this discussion
Here are some facts, for those readers that may be uniformed, unread or ideologically inclined to misrepresent facts or history:EIGHT (8) SCOTUS nominations in the last year of a presidential term have been made since 1912 – ALL of which were confirmed. There is NO record of a President failing to make a nomination in the last year of his term during the last 104 years.
A REPUBLICAN president nominated a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of his presidency in 1912 (Taft), 1932 (Hoover), 1956 (Eisenhower), 1987 (Reagan) and those nominations were confirmed by the Senate.
Holumua BO!!
This time is different. Why? The poisonous political climate, not entirely, but mainly due to the juvenile conduct of Mr. Obama and the disgraceful conduct of Harry Reid as senate majority leader in many ways, but mainly in changing Senate rules so as to pack the lower courts. Democrats are about to reap what they’ve sewn.
Please. Here is what is different. Rs are about to lose the majority in the supremes. Further, whens the Ds take the white house again ( which most pundits predict) there will be probably another, at least two seats opening up. A democratic court would be set for 20-30 years….good luck. In the words of your very own Mitch “i need to come out of the closet” McConnell, in 2005–“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered only to give advice and consent.” Facts, not pithy platitudes….
Why are you so quick to point the finger at Democrats and Obama – and ONLIY at them? Congress as a whole is dysfunctional. Why haven’t you pointed the finger at Mitch McConnell who said “NO” even before Obama said that he will nominate a successor “in due time”? Yes, that Mitch McConnell. You know, the guy whose mission is to do everything in his power to make Obama fail simply because, well, it’s Obama and not someone else. Let’s Make America White Again!
It’s “Make America Great Again”. Obama doesn’t need any help at failing.
The only thing different is the stakes are higher this time. Politics and Congress has become much more polarized and partisan than it used to be and people are tired of it.
Perhaps that’s why political outsiders lead in the polls.
Interesting. Executive branch saying it will appoint a new scj as is required under the constitution, and the legislative branch saying it will go through the process of confirming the appointee as us required per the constitution as well. Another test to see if either branch of government will be able to come to some sort of compromise…which they won’t. Unfortunately there will much too much political rhetoric as usual and is already beginning. The relationship between BO and the GOP held senate is beyond toxic. Sick and tired of it actually. These clowns in there only have one thing on there agenda…their political ideologies. Screw what the people want. I want to be safe in my life, be able to prosper and provide for my family, and create a better future for my children. Is that too much to ask from our leaders in Washington?
The court should be 9. Our founders demanded no less.
To all you republicans and your opinions I will quote justice Scalia as a reply ” get over it”.
The Republican Party is in deep trouble. Their presidential debates look like a kindergarten class fighting over a favorite toy, it is absolutely embarrassing. Now they’re in an absolute panic because their protector who covered up for them in the name of justice has moved on to a higher court where he will answer for his sins.
Compared to a liar and a socialist the Republican Party is doing great. Democrats better warm up another pitcher because the Donald is hitting it out of the park.