The U.S. Supreme Court Conundrum

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT ANTONIN SCALIA’S SEAT? We’ve purposely refrained from weighing in on the ongoing debate over the U.S. Supreme Court: Namely whether “Republican” congressional leaders should block president Barack Obama from appointing a liberal replacement for justice Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative jurist who died last month. It’s…


We’ve purposely refrained from weighing in on the ongoing debate over the U.S. Supreme Court: Namely whether “Republican” congressional leaders should block president Barack Obama from appointing a liberal replacement for justice Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative jurist who died last month.

It’s not that we don’t have thoughts on the matter … we just wanted to collect them first.

First, the facts: In the immediate aftermath of Scalia’s death, liberal establishment “Republicans” – who have done nothing to check Obama’s executive overreach – said they would not consider any candidate nominated by Obama.

As of this week, that remains their position.

“They were adamant. They said, ‘Nope,'” Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters following a meeting with Obama and GOP leaders at the White House. “All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty and do their jobs. At this stage they decided not to that. They’re going to wait and see what President (Donald) Trump will do I guess.”

The U.S. Constitution gives presidents the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices to lifetime positions – with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.  After the late 1980s – when a pair of conservative nominees submitted by Ronald Reagan were shot down – “Republicans” have tended to nominate moderate candidates to the bench while approving far left candidates from Democratic presidents.

That’s how Obamacare was upheldtwice.

Of course Obama’s administration believes Reagan gave them a precedent when he bemoaned the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate’s refusal to confirm selections made during his final year in office.

“Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body,” Reagan said in early 1988, his final full year in office.

According to Obama, that’s the mother’s milk of precedent with “Republican” lawmakers.

We’ve got several thoughts on this matter …

First, the Constitution is clear: Presidents fill vacancies on the bench.  At the time of Scalia’s death, Obama had roughly a full year left on his term – meaning the argument against his right to name a successor is a pretty weak one.  Sure, “Republicans” have done a good job framing the whole thing as something “the people should decide” (i.e. in November) – but what about the tens of millions of people who didn’t vote for their lame ass candidate in November 2012? 

Ultimately, the people did decide.

A far more compelling argument?  Obama’s unmitigated contempt for the Constitution … and the fact his allies have shredded the judicial confirmation process in the past in an effort to appoint judges who share his radical ideology.

Seriously: It’s almost comical to see this president now invoking a document he’s pretty much seen fit to wipe his ass with over the last seven years.

So … no.  We have no problem with the GOP holding Obama’s final U.S. Supreme Court appointment hostage.

There’s one other reason we approve of what the “Republican” U.S. Senate is doing: We’d hate to oppose them the one and only time they actually stood for something.

What do you think? Should Obama appoint? Should “Republicans” hold hearings on his appointment?

Post your thoughts in our comments section below …


Related posts


Prioleau Alexander: Debate Is Back, Baby!

E Prioleau Alexander

Jim Clyburn Slams ‘Racist’ Districts … That He Created

Will Folks

Palmetto Political Stock Index – 5/21/2024



Tazmaniac March 3, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Right after the failed meeting the State Dept released a statement saying they were in no rush to finish the Hillary investigation.

idcydm March 3, 2016 at 6:04 pm

Obama nominates and the Senate Borks.

Tazmaniac March 3, 2016 at 6:20 pm

I hear you. McConnell doing what he did makes no sense. Scalia’s body hadn’t even reached room temperature and he was already making an ass of himself, again. First, he has been a complete “RINO” failure as leadership. Second, what was the harm in letting the process run it’s course? He tipped his hand, no he just put the cards face up on the table like a dummy. He would have had control at the confirmation hearings and not have enraged Obama into shutting down things at State and Justice as payback. No wonder the Party is imploding.

idcydm March 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm

I don’t know how many more times the GOP can shoot them self in the foot without hitting their head.

Tazmaniac March 3, 2016 at 6:35 pm

No danger of the head getting hit as long as they don’t aim at the buttocks.

idcydm March 3, 2016 at 7:22 pm

That’s the problem they don’t know where they’re aiming. It amazes me they are going after Trump and not Clinton.

Lone Ranger March 3, 2016 at 6:16 pm

FITS readers were shocked that Folks could spell conundrum they rushed to thank his mama

Then they elected Trump and gave RINOs and OTHER Dims the dump and everything Obama !!!

erneba March 3, 2016 at 6:45 pm

Let Obama nominate a candidate. The Republicans will probably stall, delay, and then stall and delay some more. If the Republicans would grow some conjules and just quickly flat out reject every nominee that Obama submits, that would be even better. This has happened in the past for both parties.

erneba March 4, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Did not say that the Senate has always refused to confirm in the last year. I said both parties, at times, have refused to confirm the President’s nomination during the last year of his Presidency.

Slartibartfast March 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Washington Post – Facts. The only time they aren’t a paradox is when they are an oxymoron.

Fits Ain't No Republican March 3, 2016 at 7:37 pm

But Fits believes in the “constitution”

Once again his position?

Typical Republican

No isn’t he supporting REPUBLICAN Donald Trump for the REPUBLICAN nomination ?

But a “Republican?”

Hell No!

He says he ain’t!


Santiago Ledbetter March 3, 2016 at 9:58 pm

So, as regards the Constitution, two wrongs do indeed make a right, then? Long live moral relativity in politics!

Wayne March 3, 2016 at 10:23 pm

you are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Senate need to do their job.

Slartibartfast March 3, 2016 at 11:44 pm

Our Founding Fathers knew about electricity, the camera obscura, modern and ancient naval warfare, principles of fixed-winged flight, proper road-bed construction, the Mysore Rocket, archery, the principles of the internal combustion engine, the steam engine, and atomic theory – along with many other scientific and esoteric subjects.. Why is this important? Because there is a canard squawking about from liberal ducks that the world has changed and that the Constitution should too.

But when you look at the true history of science, it’s more the difference of political systems than the creation of some idea or rationale from a tabula rasa. When the Scripture says “…and there is nothing new under the sun..” the author of Ecclesiastes (perhaps King Solomon) wasn’t kidding. This is more than a simple shibboleth. Almost everything we understand and know has either been the subject of a scientific treatise or a symbolic poetic truth already expressed by the 1780’s, when the Constitution was written.

When science can create items whole, by changing the substance of matter, THEN, and only then, should we contemplate a change in the American Way of Life. But even then, the basic principles of the Constitution would not change. Even if we can have machines that duplicate food, clothing, houses, cars, people will still own things – more especially in the areas of ideas than material things, granted, but life, liberty, and property would still be the operating ideal of America.

This, more than anything, is why an ORIGINALIST view of the Constitution is the only honest view. THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN – even from the minds of liberals.

nitrat March 4, 2016 at 8:25 am

The originalism con means that only the self-appointed narcissistic jurist who can channel what the Framers REALLY meant is fit to interpret the US Constitution.
The only thing more absurd than originalism is textualism.
We need to get intellectual masturbation off all our courts.

Slartibartfast March 4, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Originalism is not anymore a con than is the fact that students are not being taught English. The one is causative of the other. Words mean things, and the only persons masturbating are the ones who are too lazy to bother knowing the language, and so they make shit up and call it progession.

Marie Nealy March 4, 2016 at 12:49 am

By a radical close friend of Obama’s who just also is of the Muslim faith and will be a lifetime robot for Obama.People wake up. Unless you all want America to become a country of towel heads and people who think it is just lovely to decapitate anyone who is not a happy goat humper What about women and children not just little girls they are just as fond of young boys. If there is not a GREAT change ahead for the USA we are going to hell in a hand basket with a broke handle.Eight years ago no one could have convinced me the people of America could and did elect a president like Obama. Obama is a full bloodied lunatic and his followers are not far behind. All of you go ahead and elect his partner in crime the one and only Killary then bend over and stick your head up your ass and you might not get it cut off. No guarantee with a traitor / proven liar and the congress that kiss ass daily all in the name of the mighty dollar.Good luck America

Rocky Verdad March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

Flip / Ter / Pogo’s back.

Rocky Verdad March 4, 2016 at 9:33 am

Midlands job fair coming.

mamatiger92 March 4, 2016 at 12:19 pm

I would prefer that America not become a country where it’s acceptable to call other Americans towel heads.

Flip March 4, 2016 at 8:40 am

Republicans will stall until November and then quickly approve an Obama appointment before Hillary takes office.

Crooner March 4, 2016 at 10:33 am

Polls show a majority believe the Prez should nominate and the Senate should hold hearings and vote.

euwe max March 4, 2016 at 11:07 am

charge 50 cents a sniff – the Girl Scouts of America will arrange field trips.

Long Dong Silver March 4, 2016 at 11:25 am

The only thing that compels a Senate controlled by the opposition party to confirm anyone is the need to compromise with the President to get something they want. Since Obama’s idea of compromise is “heads I win, tails you lose,” there is no reason to confirm a ninth justice. 4-4 ties mean the respondent wins.The law does not require the Senate to act and the Constitution does not compel it, for a good reason. The Founders knew and intended for judicial appointments to be part of the political and hence democratic process. If Obama went to the Senate and said, ok I will appoint a moderate and will agree not to veto a roll back of Obamacare, I expect the Senate would be willing to confirm.

tomstickler March 5, 2016 at 3:34 pm

4-4 ties mean the lower court decision stands, not that the respondent wins. Look it up.

In addition, if it looks like a 4-4 tie will result, and the SCOTUS does not think the lower court decision is the right thing, they can send it back for reargument.

mamatiger92 March 4, 2016 at 12:18 pm

O’Connor undermines GOP talking points on Court vacancy


“I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let’s get on with it.”

TontoBubbaGoldstein March 5, 2016 at 7:37 am

O’Connor undermines GOP talking points on Court vacancy…

Much like Earl Warren and John Roberts…

euwe max March 7, 2016 at 8:51 pm

sell tickets to hard core republicans .. 50 cents a sniff, you’ll make a FORTUNE!


Leave a Comment