Burr walks into trap
Published February 23, 2016
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, February 21, 2016.
It didn’t take long for some Republicans to realize what a blunder they’d made immediately after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared only an hour after Scalia’s death was confirmed.
Other Republican senators and presidential candidates quickly echoed the statement. Some said President Barack Obama shouldn’t even nominate a replacement.
Have they read the Constitution? It says the president “shall nominate” Supreme Court justices, not that the president shouldn’t if he happens to be in the final year of his term. Republicans were setting a new standard for obstructionism by promising to oppose any Obama nominee without a hearing.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina was one of the first to recognize the mistake.
“I think we fall into the trap — if we just simply say sight unseen — we fall into the trap of being obstructionist,” he said Tuesday.
Tillis sits on the Judiciary Committee. The panel’s chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), also recalibrated Tuesday, hinting he might hold hearings on an Obama nominee.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), however, declared that Scalia’s seat should not be filled until there’s a new president. Since Burr is up for election this year, the Supreme Court vacancy will be a campaign issue. Burr’s position, calling for the obstructionism that Tillis wisely warns against, will be hard to defend.
Not that Tillis is open-minded. He all but vowed to oppose any nominee who isn’t a conservative: “Maybe the president recognizes that he’s out of step with the American people, that the American people kind of liked the composition of the Supreme Court, so he puts forth somebody who has the identical resume and capabilities of Justice Scalia.”
Here’s a prediction: Obama won’t nominate someone just like Scalia. There probably isn’t anyone just like Scalia.
But Burr should reconsider. Last year, he voted against the confirmation of Greensboro native Loretta Lynch as attorney general. Now he’s saying no to anyone nominated for a Supreme Court seat, “sight unseen.”
He could be embarrassed if Obama nominates a compelling or popular moderate judge, such as Albert Diaz of North Carolina, who was confirmed without opposition to a seat on the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2010. Burr strongly supported Diaz, a former military judge in the Marine Corps. On what grounds could Burr object now?
The idea that a president with 11 months left in office shouldn’t get a Supreme Court appointment doesn’t wash. There’s no precedent or constitutional authority for such a position. The next president will have his or her appointments when other seats come open. If Burr snares himself in the trap of obstructionism, voters will have reason to elect a new senator.
February 23, 2016 at 11:13 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Have you read the Constitution?
President can appoint.. or not. US Senate can advise (for instance to not appoint for the rest of President's term) and consent (for instance yes, no, or later)... or not.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."
A careful balance of power. USSC can rule any action by the President or Congress unconstitutional. The President must nominate a Justice, Congress cannot appoint on their own. The Senate must consent to the nomination to appoint a justice, President cannot appoint on his/her own. Otherwise USSC and another branch could gang up on third branch.
Congress can at any time change the number of justices on the USSC, say to 8, and can without the Presidents signature if they can override the Presidents veto/pocket veto.
