Tag Archives: US Constitution

legal news, national news, political news

It’s all about the court balance

90

President Obama picked up the phone today and made a couple of important calls.

One of them went to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; the other went to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. Both men are Republicans. The president is a Democrat.

The president informed the senators he intends to make a pick for the U.S. Supreme Court. And, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, Sens. McConnell and Grassley both voted in favor of President Reagan’s “lame duck” selection of Anthony Kennedy to join the court in 1988, which was just as much of an election year as 2016.

McConnell, though, says the current president should notpick the next justice. That task belongs to the next president, he said.

What has changed?

It’s the balance of the court. It means everything. Every single thing.

You see, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the man Obama wants to replace, was a conservative stalwart on the court. The president is not a conservative; therefore, his appointee won’t echo the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia.

The next justice — if he or she is approved by the current Senate before the end of this year — is likely to change the fundamental balance of the court, which has comprised a thin conservative majority.

Senate Republicans don’t want the court balance to change. They’ll do whatever they can to prevent the president from making the pick.

There’s just this one little issue that, by my way of thinking, should matter more than anything else. The Constitution grants the president the authority to make the appointment, which this president said he’s going to do. It also grants the Senate the authority to vote whether to approve or deny the appointment. It doesn’t require the Senate to act.

If the Republican-controlled Senate is going to stymie the president, then it faces a serious charge of obstruction. Senate Republicans keep denying the obstructionist label.

A failure, though, to act in a timely fashion on this appointment gives even the casual observer ample cause to suggest that, by golly, we have just witnessed a case of political obstruction.

If the president selects someone who is eminently qualified and who has a proven record of judicial moderation — which conservatives still will see a serious break with the conservative judicial record built by the late Justice Scalia — then shouldn’t the Senate give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote?

I would say “yes.” Without equivocation.

 

national news, political news

Court to rule on Cruz’s eligibility to run

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

It won’t be the “big court” that will decide it, but a judge in Illinois has agreed to hear a case that’s been dogging a major Republican presidential candidate ever since he entered the race.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was born in Canada; his mother is American, a U.S. citizen. His father is Cuban.

Cruz has maintained that because Mom is an American, he was a U.S. citizen the instant he was born. Thus, says the candidate,  he is eligible to run for president as a “natural born citizen.”

But a fellow who happens to support Ben Carson, another GOP presidential candidate, has filed a lawsuit to challenge Cruz’s assertion.

Of course, we have Donald J. Trump continuing to threaten to sue.

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., has agreed to hear the case. I wish the U.S. Supreme Court would hear it; perhaps it will … eventually.

To be honest, I am tired of this kind of hatchet-job politicking on candidates. I do not want Cruz to become president of the United States. However, I believe he is right to say that he is fully eligible to run for the office.

Let the judge decide.

I’m not a legal or constitutional scholar, but the way I read U.S. law as it refers to citizenship, the senator has made his case.

I doubt a lower court decision is going to provide any closure. Still, I am glad that someone with legal authority — and presumably the educational background — to make an informed decision will take us closer to ending this ridiculous discussion.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Obama, GOP both spoiling for a fight to the finish

3 Comments

founders

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.

 

legal news, national news, political news

It’s wrong now … and was wrong then

1 Comment

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expresses his dismay at Russian Vladimir Putin leader granting asylum to American secrets leaker Edward Snowden, at a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013. Defying the United States, Russia granted Edward Snowden temporary asylum on Thursday, allowing the National Security Agency leaker to slip out of the Moscow airport where he has been holed up for weeks in hopes of evading espionage charges back home. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

I believe it was that great fictional Native American sidekick — Tonto — who said to the Lone Ranger, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Thus, it amuses me when I hear critics of this blog and others take note of Democratic U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s declaration in 2007 that the Senate shouldn’t approve any of President Bush’s Supreme Court appointments.

They bring that up to — more or less — justify a statement by Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell to do the same thing regarding the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Schumer can make a wrongheaded declaration then it’s OK for our guy to do it, they seem to suggest.

Schumer was wrong then and McConnell is wrong now.

Neither man has distinguished himself on this matter of constitutional authority and presidential prerogative.

So, Schumer’s assertion in 2007 got past me. He absolutely was wrong to say what he said. The U.S. Constitution gives presidents the authority to make appointments to the federal bench and I’ve long given deference to the presidents’ prerogative on these issues. If the president nominates a qualified individual to these posts, then the Senate should grant the appointee a fair hearing — and then vote.

George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 with voters knowing he would appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. His final Supreme Court appointment came in 2006 when he selected Samuel Alito. Thus, Schumer’s ill-advised admonition a year later became a moot point.

It doesn’t give Senate Majority Leader McConnell any license to erect barriers to the current president doing what he was re-elected to do.

 

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Mitch McConnell: chief obstructionist

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

Mitch McConnell declared out loud and in public shortly after Barack Obama became president that his top priority would be to make Obama a “one-term president.”

His wish went unfulfilled when the president won re-election in November 2012.

Now that McConnell is the Senate majority leader, he’s made another pledge. He is going to oppose the president’s next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Does he know who the president will nominate? No. Does he have any inside information on Obama’s short list? Again, no.

But without the faintest idea who the president will select, the Senate’s leading Republican is going to obstruct the president. He vows to prevent the president from doing what the Constitution empowers him to do. For that matter, he and other Republicans are going to prevent the Senate from doing what the Constitution requires of that body.

Obama is going to nominate someone to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s entitled to put someone forward. The Senate also has the power to consent to the nomination.

There’s much that boggles the mind about the eruption that has occurred since Scalia’s untimely death. I cannot quite rank them in order, but McConnell’s declaration that he intends to block any nomination to be considered must rank near the top.

Yes, the stakes are huge. The president is a liberal/progressive politician who likely will select someone who is a good bit to the left of the man who led the Supreme Court’s conservative movement. Thus, Senate conservatives are vowing to protect their court majority — as best they can — by seeking to hold up this confirmation until after the November election. Their hope is that a Republican will win the presidency.

We have a president with one year left in his term. As they say, elections have consequences. A majority of Americans re-elected President Obama understanding full well how he would fill a vacancy on the highest court in the land if he was given the chance to do so.

He now has that chance.

Meanwhile, the nine-member high court has been reduced to eight members. The even split among the justices could produce some tie votes on key cases yet to be argued before the court.

This is not good governance.

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Sen. McConnell then . . . and now

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

A colleague and acquaintance of mine has shared an item on social media that I’d like to share here.

It comes from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who in 2005 made a fascinating point about defending the right of presidents to make appointments to the federal judiciary.

It states:

“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 to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”
“[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.'”

Interesting, yes?

Well, 11 years later, the majority leader himself is proposing to “advise and obstruct” by seeking to delay a presidential appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the November general election that, McConnell hopes, will produce a Republican president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, has Article II Section 2 of the Constitution changed?

 

legal news, national news, political news

Unanimous picks loom as favorites for high court

untitled

Politics rules on Capitol Hill. It swings both ways, influencing both political parties.

Consider what might be about to happen.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat in the final full year of his second term and final term, is likely to name someone to fill a vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The U.S. Constitution grants him the authority to do so. It also grants the Senate the authority to approve anyone nominated to the court.

The Senate is controlled by Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other much these days. Republicans really dislike the Democrat in the White House and the feeling appears to be quite mutual.

What’s the president going to do about this high court vacancy?

One theory getting kicked around in the hours and days after Scalia’s death is that the president could name an appellate judge who’s already been approved by the Senate. One name has emerged as a possible favorite, Judge Sri Srinivasen, an Indian-American who was approved unanimously the Senate before he took his federal appeals court seat.

He’s apparently thought of as a moderate. He doesn’t lean far left. He surely doesn’t lean far right. He shoots straight down the middle, according to a number of legal experts.

So, will this fellow breeze through the confirmation process as he did when the Senate considered him for a lower court?

OK. You can stop laughing.

Republicans are vowing to deny the president any action on a pending nomination. They want to wait until after the November presidential election in which they hope a Republican wins the White House.

Democrats will have none of that. They want the president to make a nomination and they want the Senate to vote on it. Quickly.

Why not select someone who’s already been vetted by the Senate? Would a judge like Sri Srinivasen be just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as he is on a lower court?

Well, in my version of a perfect world, it would seem like a natural for the president to find a moderate judge who’s already been approved. Except that he would be succeeding a towering figure of the judicial conservative movement.

Scalia led what has been called a “conservative renaissance” on the Supreme Court. Anyone — regardless of credentials, standing among peers or legal brilliance — is going to be run through a political sausage grinder.

Politics. Sometimes it’s downright ugly.

And sometimes it doesn’t serve the nation well.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Get ready for the biggest fight of all

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

The fight over immigration?

Or the Affordable Care Act?

Or budget priorities?

How about gay marriage?

All of those battles between President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress are going to pale in comparison to what’s coming up: the battle to find a suitable nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden and tragic death Saturday has caused political apoplexy in both sides of the divide in Washington.

Democrats want the president to nominate someone sooner rather than later. Republicans want the nomination to wait until after the election, with the hope that one of their own will occupy the White House beginning Jan. 20, 2017.

President Obama indicated last night he’s inclined to move forward, to nominate someone and to insist on a “timely vote.”

He is correct to insist that he be allowed to fulfill his constitutional responsibility and that the Senate fulfill its own duties.

One of the Republican candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio, said last night that no one has been appointed during an election year. He’s half-right. President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the high court in 1987; a Democratically controlled Senate confirmed him in 1988, which certainly was an election year.

Consider this, though: Justice Kennedy succeeded another GOP nominee, the late Justice Lewis Powell (picked by President Nixon). Kennedy’s appointment and confirmation did not fundamentally change the balance of the court.

This vacancy is different. By a lot.

Justice Scalia was a towering figure among the conservative majority that serves on the court. Whoever Obama selects surely will tilt to the left.

Therein lies the fight.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said the vacancy should be filled after the election, adding that the “American people deserve a voice” in determining who sits on the court.

He could not be more off base. Yes, the voters deserve a voice. However, they spoke decisively about that in November 2012 when they re-elected Barack Obama as president.

Indeed, elections have consequences. There can arguably no greater consequence than determining who gets to select candidates to sit on the nation’s highest court.

The president — whoever he or she is — has a constitutional responsibility to act on a timely manner when these vacancies occur. Moreover, the Senate has an equal responsibility to vote up or down on anyone nominated by the president.

I’ve long believed in presidential prerogative — and my belief in that has never wavered regardless of the president’s party affiliation.

So, let’s mourn the death of a distinguished and, in the president’s words “consequential” justice. Then let us allow the president to do the job allowed by the Constitution and then let us demand that the Senate do its job by voting on whoever the president selects to fill this critical court vacancy.

 

legal news, national news, political news

What, precisely, does ‘original intent’ mean?

10 Comments

founders

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio tonight paid glowing tribute to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The praise came while Rubio was taking part in the Republican presidential debate.

He said something that struck me as, well, fascinating. Rubio said Scalia’s legal brilliance was rooted in his belief that the U.S. Constitution is not a “living document,” but that the Constitution should be interpreted precisely as the founders intended.

I don’t believe for one second that Justice Scalia wanted to roll back the advances that came about in the many years since the founders wrote the Constitution — in the late 18th century.

However, if Rubio’s praise of Scalia is to be taken literally, it seems fair to wonder: Does he believe the founders were right to deny women the right to vote, or that African-Americans should be enslaved?

Of course he doesn’t.

However, we can see the discrepancy — in my view — in the debate over whether the Constitution is a living document. The argument of those who favor the so-called “original intent” of the founders breaks down.

Why? Because of the many reforms approved in the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified, the document does indeed evolve as our nation has evolved.

It’s alive, man.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Let’s ask High Court to settle Cruz eligibility

cruz

The U.S. Supreme Court is in session.

Sure, the justices have plenty on their individual and collective plates. How about giving them one more issue to decide?

Let’s petition the court to decide whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to run for president of the United States.

An essay in Salon suggests that upon closer examination, Cruz’s “natural born” credentials are showing signs of weakness. I’m not sure I buy that notion. I believe he’s eligible to run, despite being born in Canada; his father is Cuban, but his mother is American. U.S. law granted young Teddy citizenship the moment he came into this world.

But the question is swirling nonetheless over whether Cruz qualifies as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

What harm can be done by asking the court to take up the issue? It comprises a conservative majority. Oh, wait. The court is non-political, yes?

What might happen if the highest court in America decides against hearing the case? That could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the notion that the Texas Republican senator is, indeed, eligible to seek the presidency.

I don’t believe the issue is a terribly complicated one to settle once and for all.

The federal law that grants citizenship to anyone born to an American citizen — regardless of where the birth occurs — either is constitutional or it isn’t.

I believe Ted Cruz is qualified to seek the presidency.

Furthermore, I also believe it’s time for the nine men and women who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue — for keeps!

Just one more point . . .

Cruz criticized the court this past year for its narrow ruling allowing gay marriage, saying that “five unelected judges” shouldn’t be deciding what’s legal and what isn’t.

Would the senator say the same thing if, say, five unelected judges rule in his favor on the “natural born” citizenship question?