Ash writes: "On January 3, 2017, a very important window will open. All constitutional experts agree that President Obama has the power to appoint a justice of his choosing and fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, without a Senate confirmation hearing. On that day, and that day alone."
Donald Trump has promised to name a Supreme Court justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia. (photo: Wikimedia Commons/Supreme Court)
Will Obama Surrender the Supreme Court to Trump?
29 December 16
n January 3, 2017, a very important window will open. All constitutional experts agree that President Obama has the power to appoint a justice of his choosing and fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, without a Senate confirmation hearing. On that day, and that day alone.
The process is called, as he knows, an inter-session recess appointment. It would without question succeed in placing a justice of his choosing on the court for at least one year. Failure to do so would guarantee a politically motivated, right-wing majority for decades to come.
Obama�s critics say that a recess appointment would be bad form, or an expression of bitterness after a failed election. Far from it. The New York Times is quite correct in dubbing the open court seat as The Stolen Supreme Court Seat. It bears repeating that this appointment was President Barack Obama�s to make. Open and shut.
Should Obama walk away from that, he would validate and legitimatize the Republican act of piracy. Moreover, he would be complicit in the greatest judicial coup in U.S. history. He would in effect become an active partner, a facilitator to the injustice.
While the appointment is Obama�s to make as President of the United States, the seat belongs to the American people, and it is the American people whose best interests Obama is sworn to act upon.
There are two arguments that are often cited against a recess appointment. The first is that it would only be guaranteed to last one year, until December 2017 . The second is that Judge Merrick Garland is currently Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It�s a very prestigious post, and Garland might not want to give up that position for an appointment, even a Supreme Court appointment, that might only last a year.
To the first point, that a recess appointment would only last a year and that presumably not much changes in a year: Senator Mitch McConnell laid waste to that argument. He bought a year and stands poised to reshape the court for decades. A lot can change in a year. If McConnell finds himself on the receiving end of a one-year delay, he will probably call it treason.
To the argument that Garland might opt to return to the D.C. Court of Appeals rather than accept a one-year stint on the Supreme court: Obama is not tethered to the Garland nomination. He can place Garland or any qualified candidate of his choosing during a recess appointment.
Obama must not lose sight of what is at stake. It is not just his approval rating. It is the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come. Obama acts in this regard not just on behalf of all Americans, but particularly on behalf of those who supported his ascension to the presidency. Among those constituents, support for a recess appointment would be overwhelming.
The perception of American voters is that Democrats don�t fight. It cost them dearly at the polls this time and it will cost them every time, until they demonstrate that they will.
The composition of the Supreme Court is arguably of greater consequence than the office of the president. This is an enormously important decision. People are waiting to see a Democrat, any Democrat, stand up and make a fight.
Obama can lead that fight or run away from it. But he can�t do both.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
John Boanerges pain in the ass Redman
This droning, people and Mother Earth destroying country of ours is exceptional in only one way - our need to maintain greed and total power over all. With both the first prime minister in the U.K., Sir Robert Walpole, and a Dem. Pres., Andrew Jackson, hanging in both my family trees, I, today sadly proclaim:
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERCAN !!!
I thought Mitt Romney brought Obamacare into the world.
I see ..... so anyone who is not with you is against you ..... seems I've heard that before.
Therefore, Obama is carrying on with an agenda set long ago. He was going to do it regardless and began it all his first day in office. He is definitely liable, but yes, "this crap has been around much longer than he has".
Well, I bet she doesn't know how to get the most out of her iPhone !
Take THAT, 3rd world!
I appreciate the fact that you are joking, of course, and I gotta say I'm not certain that *I'd* take that bet ! A 16-yr-old as brilliant as this one - who has now been living in England for two years ago, not able to "spank" her own i-phone ? I dunno ! ;-))
This young lady is astonishing. She addressed the United Nations a short while back.
Damn ! When I was 16-yrs.-old, I had to struggle to get up and address my High School speech class, and they all spoke my native language. I am likewise certain that I would have "choked" in addressing POTUS at that age
Malala is still years away from being in possession of an adult judgement center (prefrontal cortex engaged) which arrives, for the human female as late as age 22, and for the male, as late as age 24. This is the brain center for higher reasoning.
So given what this incredible person is accomplishing so far - I would just advise the world - Watch Out ! ;-))
I was right behind Jon Stewart when he interviewed Malala on his show and commented " .... I know your Dad is here with you, back in the Green Room ..... but can I adopt you ?"
My only concern for Malala is her choice as a role model, of the beautiful and highly intelligent Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, whose star burned brightly until she herself was assassinated.
Thanks, man.
Of course. That's their purpose. To keep conflict going. That's what sells more weapons and weapons systems.
Seriously, "Satan worshippers"?
I know hyperbole is fun, but just because you're not a Muslim doesn't give you the right to say 1 billion people are "Satan worshippers".
Lying and bearing false witness are both against the Ten Commandments.
Great post, and I'm certain you meant to note that Malala is from Pakistan, rather than India. She speaks Urdu as a native.
Malala is right about education, it is the key to freeing people but Obama will continue to use his drones while the rest of the world watches in growing disgust.
Or Elizabeth Warren's secretary of State
Exactly. And this is the important thing in the article. Once again, the multitude of posts is off-track.
I have seen you advance this canard in the past. This time I have opted against letting it pass unanswered.
First, the commenters have no cause to comment on what was *NOT* in the article, (Obama's response) because the absence of info in the article makes comment on it, *by definition* "off-track".
This is true, even though I know that many of us were also curious about that same question.
Second, the fact that the comment string is *not* custom tailored to *your* specific line of thought is NOT evidence that said posts are all "off-track", a position that you have often maintained in the past.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the comment section is really *not* all about you. Sorry if that sounds rude.
Humbug. You're absolutely right that I'm an egomaniac if that makes you feel better. But you should continue to feel disengaged for pouncing on something so small. Of course people can discuss anything they want, any time. But when the main subject is more important, they should stick with it, and if they don't they are SCHMUCKS. Or if I don't make myself clear, then "You are trying to be Nero while Rome burns."
So, by that logic, Miss Yousafzai is a "teabagger", I guess...
I don't accept all the glib cynicism in this although it approaches Orwellian intelligence. George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama simply are and were uninformed men and very stupid on the drone point brought up by Malala.
If either Bush or Obama were students of early World War II, they would know that drones did more than anything to galvanize the British people from Winston Churchill and Mrs. Miniver on down.
Drones are horror movie stuff interspersing silence and characteristic sound with a deadly-- now? when? now?-- boom.
As such, they are fodder for paranoia, but in this as in certain other things, if you aren't paranoid you don't know what's going on.
If Obama hadn't spent so much time studying law while Bush studied the torture of horseflies, either of these guys might have taken a psychology course through which he could have begun to approach the emotional maturity of Malala.
Yes, drones create new terrorists. That may be obvious to educated persons but not to these last two presidents, and neither has proved an enlightened and decisive leader on Malala's huge point despite whatever else redeems them.
Well, let me revise that...to whatever partially redeems Barack Obama. But his redeeming traits don't fully compensate for his decisions on war, torture and drones.