Sandra Day O'Connor: Obama should name Scalia's replacement

[jpak]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says President Barack Obama should name Antonin Scalia's replacement.

O'Connor, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan who became the court's swing vote until she retired from the bench in 2006, broke with Republicans who say they plan to block Obama's nominee, and want his successor to name the next justice.

"I don't agree (with Republicans)," O'Connor said in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate KSAZ. "We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it."

She noted that it's unusual to for a Supreme Court opening to exist in an election year, saying that the proximity to the presidential race "creates too much talk around the thing that isn't necessary."

<more>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/index.html

[elleng]

1. BRAVO!

[mdbl]

3. She's still trying to atone for

selecting GW Bush as president instead of allowing the election decide.

[Skittles]

4. that will be part of her legacy

what a disgrace

[valerief]

6. Exactly. She lied down with dogs and now has fleas. nt

[forest444]

10. And the one real opportunity she had, she blew.

That was when she retired from the court in 2006, when Dubya was in office and Belle Frist was still Senate Majority Leader.

The result, of course, was the appointment of that Opus Dei fascist "Scalito" Alito - a decision the country will probably have to live with until the 2030s.

It's worth noting that then-Senator Obama was among those who tried to block Scalito's nomination (which, as you know, Republicans are already using as an excuse to to block's Obama's eventual nominee).

I recall reading at the time that O'Connor's husband was a close associate of Cheney's back then. Sounds like Mr. O'Connor had a talk with the little lady.

[tabasco]

19. A Senator is allowed to oppose a nomination

but the Senate is not allowed to just put that shit off for a year.

[onenote]

21. Constitutionally, the Senate isn't "required" to do anything with a SCOTUS nomination

Just as they're not "required" to do anything with a nomination to a lower court, or an ambassadorship, or any of the 1000 (no exaggeration) positions subject to Senate confirmation.

But as a matter of politics and tradition, they run a big risk in stonewalling.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

24. 100% correct

[tabasco]

26. 100% incorrect.

See below.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

29. Sorry dude, you're wrong.

I don't like it either but they could sit on this for decades if they wanted. Now, they won't. Obama will nominate someone and they will vote. The only real pressure they have is the voters pressuring them and voting them out of office. Plus, there is a court right now.

[tabasco]

31. Sorry dude, you're wrong.

The issue is the Supreme Court, not a lower federal court. The Senate has a specified constitutional duty to act on nominations to the Supreme Court. Its failure to do so in the past is irrelevant.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

32. Nobody said they didn't have to act, what I'm saying is there is no timeframe.

I hate it too. That's just the way it is. It sucks.

[tabasco]

25. Nonsense.

The Constitution requires there be a Supreme Court. If the Senate does nothing, there is no court.

[onenote]

28. Enforcing what the Constitution "requires" presents an interesting issue.

If the Senate refused to confirm any justices there would be no Court. And if there was no Court, who could force Congress to act and how? It ultimately is up to the electorate to make things happen, not an enforceable Constitutional directive. Some history:

The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788. The first Congress was convened March 4, 1789. While the Constitution decrees that there shall be a Supreme Court, as a practical matter, it required enabling legislation to bring it into being. That legislation, which established the size of the Court (six), what constitutes a quorum (four), and the term during which the Court would meet was not enacted until September 24, 1789. (Note that by setting the number of justices at six, the Congress opened the door to evenly split decisions). Five justices were confirmed by the end of September 1789 but the Court didn't convene for its first session until February 1790 and did not have a full complement of six justices until May 1790.

So here are some questions: What if the first Congress had enacted legislation establishing that the Supreme Court should consist of only one Justice? Or two? Could that be challenged? What if the Congress simply never established the number of Justices -- how would the requirement that there be a Supreme Court be enforced -- one couldn't take it to Court if Congress refused to enact enabling legislation. And what if all of the Justices resigned at once and the Congress refused to appoint successors -- who would have the power to force Congress to do so?


The questions are endless. And for the most part pointless. That's because the ultimate responsibly for ensuring that Congress carried out the directive that there be a Supreme Court rests with the electorate.

[roamer65]

16. Very true. It wasn't for the SCOTUS to decide.

They should have kicked it back to the Florida Supreme Court and if FL couldn't decide, it would have gone into the House of Reps as prescribed by the Constitution.

That is the true strict Constitutional way it should have played out.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Just because it is an election year does not mean all responsibilities cease, Republicans needs

to either do their jobs or resign.

[lastlib]

5. "The Party of Personal Responsibility"....

...once again refuses to take any........ .

[forest444]

14. The party of self-righteousness strikes again.

"You play by the rules," GOP reasoning goes, "and don't mind if i cheat."

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Why the fuck is this even a question?.......(he asked rhetorically) nt

[cui bono]

9. I was just posting the same thing as you!

Our media needs to be broken up along with the banks.

.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. Just a mere 3 words and we would've been post twins!...... I don't

know. I just made that shit up. Don't mind me.

[cui bono]

8. Why the fuck is this an actual question???

OF COURSE he should name someone. He's the president. The people voted him in. He should do his job.

The fact that the batshit crazy unconstitutional GOP is being taken seriously with this shit is crazy.

.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. That is a brilliant question!!!! :-p

[cui bono]

15. =)

[demwing]

27. You two are cracking me up

post twins.

[JudyM]

13. I'm sure Scalia would have had the opposite opinion, fine constitutional jurist that he was.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Just like how she named Clinton's replacement!

Of course, what she did was wholly unconstitutional and a slap in the face to democracy, where Obama appointing a justice is well within his powers and responsibilities.

[ladjf]

18. She sold us out in the election of 2000, siding with the Bush

people. nt

[mpcamb]

22. She'll never make up for the evil she perpetrated on the US political system.

[ladjf]

23. I think I recall that in a later interview she regretting siding with Bush on that

election matter. Lame!

[Gothmog]

20. Harry Reid is setting a trap and will use any opposition to a qualified nominee to retake the Senate

[L. Coyote]

30. HUGE DO'H! Wow, a Supreme Cout Republican has read the Constitution. I'm a bit surprised.