Death of Supreme Court Justice Ignites Partisan Debate

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has infused the Democratic and Republican primaries with new drama. Last Friday, Feb. 12, Scalia was found dead of natural causes at a luxury resort in West Texas. He
was 79 years old.

Both Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders (I) and Patrick Leahy (D) offered Scalia and his family their condolences on Friday, describing Scalia as a “brilliant” and “colorful” judge.

Sanders issued the following statement: “While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.”

The presidential hopeful initially kept a low profile during the political malestrom, hoping to insulate the political momentum generated by his victory in New Hampshire.

However, at a Democratic dinner last Saturday, he criticized Republicans for their obstructionism.

“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of the Constitution of the United States,” Sanders said. “Apparently they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that.”

Following Scalia’s death, Democrats have argued that it is incumbent upon the Legislature to approve a new judge as quickly as possible, and by delaying an appointment they abdicate their duty as elected officials.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont has been at the forefront of this political battle.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons,” read his statement in response to Scalia’s death. “It is only February. The President and the Senate should get to work without delay to nominate, consider and confirm the next justice to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Republicans on the other hand, have urged President Obama to refrain from appointing a new Justice. They argue that the decision should be left to the next President, who will better represent the desires of the American people.

On Fox News Sunday, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R) explained that the
Senate is not obligated to approve an Obama appointment. Although he acknowledged that Obama can constitutionally nominate a new justice, he still must seek Senate approval.

“The Senate has no obligation to shift this court for the next 30 years radically to the left in the last year of the Obama presidency,” said Gingrich.

The GOP holds a majority in the Senate and could block an Obama nomination. Historically, the rejection of a Supreme Court nominee is rare – but not unprecedented. The last time a justice was rejected was in 1987, when Senate Democrats rejected Reagan’s nominee Robert H. Bork.

At the moment, it is unclear whether Obama will nominate a more moderate judge likely to survive a partisan showdown, or whether he will opt to select a more liberal justice.

Sri Srinivasan, an Asian-American appointed previously to a post on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reaches across the aisle, as does his colleague Merrick Garland.

However, should Obama choose to nominate a judge that the Senate then rejects, it is unclear whether Republicans could retain control of the Senate. Although Republicans currently have a slight majority in the Senate, 24 Republican seats are up for reelection in November.

Senator Leahy was skeptical of Republican maneuvering.

“If the Republican leadership refuses to even hold a hearing,” he said in an interview with CNN, “I think that is going to guarantee they’re going to lose control of the Senate.”

Without a ninth justice, the Supreme Court could arrive at 4-4 split decisions on a number of key issues. If this were to happen, the cases would be sent down to appelate courts for a ruling.