U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death on February 13, 2016 was a profound loss to the country's legal community. Throughout his 30-year tenure at the country's apex court, Justice Scalia penned several majority and dissenting opinions that had worked over the years as a sound framework for conservative talking points on multitude of issues ranging from the Second Amendment to gay marriage. Antonin Scalia's arguments, reflecting what the law had meant at the time of its formulation, often put him at odds with the shifting mindset of a rapidly changing country. Justice Scalia's use of words and sentences marveled legal luminaries of all political stripes irrespective of whether they agreed with him or not. Justice Antonin Scalia came to morph himself as a conservative icon known for his originalist viewpoint, and was revered by Republicans in general and conservatives in particular.
That's why it's not surprising if Republican contenders for presidency would not like to leave the choice of naming Scalia's replacement to President Barack Obama. However, what's astonishingly shocking, and seemed surreal, when the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, went ahead of the crowd within hours of when the nation had heard the news of Justice Antonin Scalia's death, and demanded that President Obama better leave the job of naming the replacement to his successor. Senator Mitch McConnell's demand doesn't pass a single test on political courtesy, legislative responsibility and constitutional obligation. Since then, McConnell was joined by other Republicans to call for President Barack Obama to wait out the remainder of his term. Even the Republican lawmakers of the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Sen. Charles Grassley openly threatened in a letter that they would not even hold a hearing if a candidate was named by President Barack Obama. This sort of outlandish attitude by Republicans toward an important issue such as filling out a slot in the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing but a shameful reflection of their political grandstanding in a presidential election year. First and foremost, Republicans better know that there is only one president at a time, and Barack Obama as the President of the United States, has all the right--and an obligation--to name an appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans may like it, may disdain it, but President Obama has the authority to name a successor. What Republicans ought to do is to schedule a hearing, give a fair chance to the candidate to explain her, or his, perspectives and positions, and if they are not satisfied, they may reject her, or his, candidature. The process is as simple as it is. Now, many of the Republicans cite--and correctly so--the obstructionist policy put up by the Democratic majority in the Senate during the last few years of George W. Bush presidency. Is it not that Mitch McConnell, after becoming the Majority Leader, has promised to have the Senate to be run and led in a more bipartisan, bold and productive way to show the American people the key difference in leadership between him and Harry Reid? Republican rationale that it's an election year doesn't fly on its face as there have been instances in the past when a Supreme Court nominee's hearing has been held in an election year, the latest being the hearing and subsequent confirmation of the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988.
For President Barack Obama, it's an opportunity he must seize to put his imprint on the composition of the court, and by extension, to influence several important national issues in the years to come. President Obama should choose a candidate who has already been vetted on another appointment (say, an appointment to a lower court) to avoid any unexpected surprise. He should use a comprehensive criteria to select a candidate who is intellectually sharp, a legal luminary, sensitive to evolving fundamental change to our society and the world, and most importantly, has a record trail of interpreting the constitution through the lens of original framers as well as stakeholders of a fast-changing world.
That's why it's not surprising if Republican contenders for presidency would not like to leave the choice of naming Scalia's replacement to President Barack Obama. However, what's astonishingly shocking, and seemed surreal, when the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, went ahead of the crowd within hours of when the nation had heard the news of Justice Antonin Scalia's death, and demanded that President Obama better leave the job of naming the replacement to his successor. Senator Mitch McConnell's demand doesn't pass a single test on political courtesy, legislative responsibility and constitutional obligation. Since then, McConnell was joined by other Republicans to call for President Barack Obama to wait out the remainder of his term. Even the Republican lawmakers of the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Sen. Charles Grassley openly threatened in a letter that they would not even hold a hearing if a candidate was named by President Barack Obama. This sort of outlandish attitude by Republicans toward an important issue such as filling out a slot in the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing but a shameful reflection of their political grandstanding in a presidential election year. First and foremost, Republicans better know that there is only one president at a time, and Barack Obama as the President of the United States, has all the right--and an obligation--to name an appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans may like it, may disdain it, but President Obama has the authority to name a successor. What Republicans ought to do is to schedule a hearing, give a fair chance to the candidate to explain her, or his, perspectives and positions, and if they are not satisfied, they may reject her, or his, candidature. The process is as simple as it is. Now, many of the Republicans cite--and correctly so--the obstructionist policy put up by the Democratic majority in the Senate during the last few years of George W. Bush presidency. Is it not that Mitch McConnell, after becoming the Majority Leader, has promised to have the Senate to be run and led in a more bipartisan, bold and productive way to show the American people the key difference in leadership between him and Harry Reid? Republican rationale that it's an election year doesn't fly on its face as there have been instances in the past when a Supreme Court nominee's hearing has been held in an election year, the latest being the hearing and subsequent confirmation of the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988.
For President Barack Obama, it's an opportunity he must seize to put his imprint on the composition of the court, and by extension, to influence several important national issues in the years to come. President Obama should choose a candidate who has already been vetted on another appointment (say, an appointment to a lower court) to avoid any unexpected surprise. He should use a comprehensive criteria to select a candidate who is intellectually sharp, a legal luminary, sensitive to evolving fundamental change to our society and the world, and most importantly, has a record trail of interpreting the constitution through the lens of original framers as well as stakeholders of a fast-changing world.
