Here’s where we appear to be standing with regard to that vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Obama said today he intends to select an “indisputably qualified” person to fill the seat vacated by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
U.S. Senate Republicans say they intend to block anyone the president nominates.
Who’s on the right side? In my view, it’s not even close.
The president is right. GOP senators are wrong.
Indeed, it’s looking now as though that no matter who gets the call from the president that he or she is going to face a serious fight.
My hunch now is that Barack Obama welcomes the fight. Why? He will wage it from a position of strength.
He’s got the Constitution on his side.
This appointment could change the makeup of the court, which has a slim conservative majority among its members.
Right there is the crux of Republican obstructionism.
Justice Scalia was the shining light among the conservatives serving on the court. He led what’s been called a “conservative renaissance.” His brilliance was beyond question. So was his commitment to conservative principles.
President Obama has another year left in his term. Some have suggested that if Republicans were to get their way, they effectively would eliminate the fourth year of the president’s term. They oppose — on some made-up principle — the idea of a lame-duck president making an appointment to the Supreme Court. They want the next president to make the call.
Well, as Obama said today, those who claim to adhere to strict constitutional principles are creating them out of thin air. The Constitution says the president should nominate people to the federal bench and that the Senate should vote up or down on those nominations.
Both sides are spoiling for a fight. So, let’s have at it.
Barack Obama is set to throw the first punch when he nominates someone to the highest court in the land.
Go for it, Mr. President.
I have a question regarding the use of the term “lame duck”. My understanding of this term is that it refers to the incumbent’s remaining term after his replacement has been chosen.
I see it being liberally used to describe any time left in office leading up to the end of an elected official legal term.
Used in that fashion, any second term for the President would be “lame duck”. In 1985, Ronald Reagan became lame duck, using those qualifications.
I really cannot see any conservative agreeing that that was true.
Those conservatives should forget the term “lame duck” since they obviously do not understand it. Obama should be treated like a lawfully elected President and not referred to as limping poultry.
The term “lame duck” seems to have become a bit more fluid. Depending on how you choose to use the term, Barack Obama became a lame duck the moment he was re-elected in November 2012. The Constitution prohibits him from running again; therefore, he is a lame duck. Your understanding of the term is equally valid, I suppose. However, you choose to define the term, you’re right about this point: The president is the president until the next one takes the oath. He needs to be treated as one who is “lawfully elected.”
“The Constitution says …”
Doesn’t matter. It’s a “living” document. It means what we say it means. If only there were an argument for abiding by what the framers intended that doesn’t break down into the support of slavery and the subjugation of women.