Executive appointments - What would Justice Scalia Do?
Many Republicans seem to think the US Constution is a sequal to the Bible. Although most Republicans have never read the Constution, written in 1787, and signed in Philadelphia, they have a concrete belief in the words as they were inscribed. In fact, some Republicans have a sense of the Constiuton as being an infallable document, as though it were inspired by God, like The Ten Commandments and the Old Testament Book of Leviticus.
For those who care to read it, the US Constituion is an instruction manual, describing how our nation's founding fathers structured a divided government. In other words, the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial branches of government are to be separate and thereby create a system of checks and balances on the power of each other. Therefore, with the death of Justic Scalia, it appears the Republican members of the US Senate want to unduly influence the power of the Judiciary. It's the Senate that's behaving in a manner contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Unbelievably, the Senate's Republican leadership (Senator Mitch McConnell) didn't even wait until Justice Scalia's family had validated the death before they jumped to claim they would not vote on any nominee submitted by President Obama.
In fact, the Republican obstanance toward the President is a calculated and strategic action targeted to shut down the US government, by making ineffective all split decisions by the Judicial branch.
Therefore, what the Senate is doing, by not acting on a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, in my opinion, is sedition.
Obviously, I'm not a Constiituonal scholar. Nevertheless, I can read the words written by its authors, especially the narrative in the Article II language.
In fact, the "job description" written in the Constituton give the Executive branch of government the authority to fill judicial vacancies. Indeed, President Barack Obama has the authority to nominate a successor to the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016), whose position is now vacant, on the Supreme Court.
At this time in American history, President Obama has reached the provberial "cross roads". As the iconic baseball hero Yogi Berra is reported to have said, "When you reach a fork in the road....take it." Well, this opportunity to nominate a successor to the late Justic Scalia is the "fork in the road". President Obama has studied all of his professional life to respond to this Constitutional moment.
Indeed, President Obama must submit a nominee to the Senate as his choice to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It is the sacred Constitutional responsibility of the US Senate to vote on the qualifications of the Presidential nominee to replace Justice Scalia.
What would Justice Scalia do if he were asked to advise President Obama about nominating his replacement? Scalia was a strict (concrete) interpreter of the Constitution. He spoke as though he were one of the documents signers. In Scalia's opinion, the Constituion was written to limit the reinterpretation of the language. Therefore, there's little doubt about what Justice Scalia would do, given the opporutnity to respond to how President Obama should respond to the vacancy of created by his death.
What would Justice Scalia do? In my opinion, he would advise the Senate Republicans to read the Constitution and do what it says.
| Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016): what would he want the President of the United States to do? |
In fact, the Republican obstanance toward the President is a calculated and strategic action targeted to shut down the US government, by making ineffective all split decisions by the Judicial branch.
Therefore, what the Senate is doing, by not acting on a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, in my opinion, is sedition.
Obviously, I'm not a Constiituonal scholar. Nevertheless, I can read the words written by its authors, especially the narrative in the Article II language.
In fact, the "job description" written in the Constituton give the Executive branch of government the authority to fill judicial vacancies. Indeed, President Barack Obama has the authority to nominate a successor to the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016), whose position is now vacant, on the Supreme Court.
At this time in American history, President Obama has reached the provberial "cross roads". As the iconic baseball hero Yogi Berra is reported to have said, "When you reach a fork in the road....take it." Well, this opportunity to nominate a successor to the late Justic Scalia is the "fork in the road". President Obama has studied all of his professional life to respond to this Constitutional moment.
Indeed, President Obama must submit a nominee to the Senate as his choice to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It is the sacred Constitutional responsibility of the US Senate to vote on the qualifications of the Presidential nominee to replace Justice Scalia.
What would Justice Scalia do if he were asked to advise President Obama about nominating his replacement? Scalia was a strict (concrete) interpreter of the Constitution. He spoke as though he were one of the documents signers. In Scalia's opinion, the Constituion was written to limit the reinterpretation of the language. Therefore, there's little doubt about what Justice Scalia would do, given the opporutnity to respond to how President Obama should respond to the vacancy of created by his death.
What would Justice Scalia do? In my opinion, he would advise the Senate Republicans to read the Constitution and do what it says.
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 5:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home