THE SUPREMES (AGAIN)

Notes of Concern…

   …Jack Blair

THE SUPREMES

(AGAIN)

The nine members of The United States Supreme court had bookends.

The most intelligent and wise member on the conservative side was Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. His counterpart, the most intelligent and wise member on the liberal side is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg.

Scalia passed away at a very bad time, right in the heat of a battle for the presidency. For years Bader-Ginzburg has been expected to step down due to various medical problems, including cancer. So it is reasonable to anticipate she will not have many more years on the court.

Bottom line: soon both the best Justices, in my view, will no longer be hearing cases, mentoring clerks, and writing opinions that will be read in law schools forever.

It is understandable that the Democrats would love to get to replace Scalia. They might not get a liberal but they could ensure his predictable conservative vote would be replaced with some sort of moderate that a Democrat president could nominate and convince a Republican senate to confirm.

It is equally understandable that the Republicans would like to replace Justice Scalia with someone just like him.

The Republicans say they will not consider a nominee sent to them by the sitting President. I personally find that unconstitutional. His term has as president has not ended just because they wish it had. Now has their responsibility to vet any nominee he might send to them.

The Judiciary Committee has a majority of Republicans so it is entirely possible they will choose not to confirm anyone this President sends to them. But it is his duty to nominate someone because he is the President and the Constitution so states. 

It is their(the Judiciary Committee of the Senate) duty to question and consider the candidate sent to them. They have absolutely no clear way out of this obligation.

But that is where the Constitution stops and politics enters. 

The GOP controlled Judiciary Committee can, for whatever reasons they choose, fail to confirm the President’s nominee. So if the GOP wants to hold the seat open, that is the Constitutional way to do so.

And the people need to remember that if the Democrats hold The White House in the election this will all work out in a manner favourable to liberals. If the Democrats retake the Senate and a Republican is in The White House, it will all work out. Because only a compromise candidate will garner enough votes and that means someone considerably less conservative than Associate Justice Scalia.

So all the current sturm und drang means very little. 

It will be a major issue in the coming campaign with Democrats and Republicans emphasizing the importance of the appointee a new president will pick. They will tell us of all sorts of things that could be changed or never considered. They will try to scare us. They will remind us of how quickly what each considers progress can be revised.

Take a moment to look at the ages of all the judges. 

Whomever is president it is highly likely there will be one or two additional replacements required over the four years of the next  presidential term.  Look at how many sitting Justices were born in the 1930s!  So while I would like to see another Scalia, and had it been Bader-Ginzburg who died, I would like to see another like her, which means politics is not as important to  the court as a good mind, the ability to discern the meaning of the Constitution, and the talent to write understandable opinions that will hold through history.

Considering the number of previous Justices appointed because they were liberal, and others because they were conservative, only to take seriously their responsibilities to listen to the arguments of their colleagues and in light of their lifetime appointment make their own judgments which often were in conflict with what the president who appointed them might wish, I would suggest we just look for a smart, articulate example of the best America has to offer. 

Sounds like a winning strategy to me.