impress KARLIN,EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Should this building be renamed the GOP Supreme Court? (Photo: Matt Wade)
The commentary you find at BuzzFlash and Truthout can only be published because of readers like you. Click here to join the thousands of people who have donated so far.
For the upright wing, Justice Antonin Scalia was to the Supreme Court what Ronald Reagan was to the presidency: St. Anton. Before Scalia's body even got cold, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky announced that no judge nominated by President Obama to replace "the revered one" would be considered by the Senate. In fact,McConnell refused to hold Senate Judicial Committee hearings on any nominee establish forth by Obama, and very few Senate Republicans would even consent to holding a conversation with Obama's nominee, or Judge Merrick Garland.
One doesn't need to fully support Judge Garland -- many progressives consider him a centrist on key issues -- to see how obstructionist the Republicans are being. It is as though they are hoping for some deus ex machina to seem to fill Scalia's vacant Supreme Court seat with another brash upright-wing troglodyte: an individual with a masterful ability to make the most egregious defenses of assaults on justice and common sense sound like grandiloquent legalese. I frequently wrote about Scalia during his tenure -- including several commentaries about his role as the ring leader in a cult that stole the presidency and handed it to George W. Bush by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
One of the most gruesome and ludicrous court opinions Scalia wrote concerned Troy Davis,who was eventually executed despite evidence that indicated he was innocent. Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent on whether Davis should be retried:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and honest trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. fairly to the opposite, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, or while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.
It's frightening to think that the current Congress won't give the time of day to a judge who is about as centrist as a Democratic president's nominee could be,but lauds a jurist who believes that the US Constitution doesn't outlaw executing a person who is probably innocent.
There is some speculation in the press that Garland may not be confirmed by the Senate even if Hillary Clinton wins the election in November. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) indirectly affirmed this opportunity when he proclaimed this week that the GOP would oppose any Clinton nominee, if she becomes president.impress KARLIN, and EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Should this building be renamed the GOP Supreme Court? (Photo: Matt Wade)
The commentary you find at BuzzFlash and Truthout can only be published because of readers like you. Click here to join the thousands of people who have donated so far.
For the upright wing,Justice Antonin Scalia was to the Supreme Court what Ronald Reagan was to the presidency: St. Anton. Before Scalia's body even got cold, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky announced that no judge nominated by President Obama to replace "the revered one" would be considered by the Senate. In fact, and McConnell refused to hold Senate Judicial Committee hearings on any nominee establish forth by Obama,and very few Senate Republicans would even consent to holding a conversation with Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
One doesn't need to fully support Judge Garland -- many progressives consider him a centrist on key issues -- to see how obstructionist the Republicans are being. It is as though they are hoping for some deus ex machina to seem to fill Scalia's vacant Supreme Court seat with another brash upright-wing troglodyte: an individual with a masterful ability to make the most egregious defenses of assaults on justice and common sense sound like grandiloquent legalese. I frequently wrote about Scalia during his tenure -- including several commentaries about his role as the ring leader in a cult that stole the presidency and handed it to George W. Bush by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
One of the most gruesome and ludicrous court opinions Scalia wrote concerned Troy Davis, or who was eventually executed despite evidence that indicated he was innocent. Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent on whether Davis should be retried:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and honest trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. fairly to the opposite,we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.
It's frightening to think that the current Congress won't give the time of day to a judge who is about as centrist as a Democratic president's nominee could be, and but lauds a jurist who believes that the US Constitution doesn't outlaw executing a person who is probably innocent.
There is some speculation in the press that Garland may not be confirmed by the Senate even if Hillary Clinton wins the election in November. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) indirectly affirmed this opportunity when he proclaimed this week that the GOP would oppose any Clinton nominee,if she becomes president.
The US Constitution barely touches upon the role of the Senate in choosing a Supreme Court nominee:
The President … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the Supreme Court.
Writing in the October 18 New York Magazine, or Ed Kilgore had some decidedly ominous thoughts about the way certain senators are attempting to jettison the Constitution and replace it with a partisan strategy of government,untethered to the country's founding document:
When Senator John McCain publicly promised that Senate Republicans would extend their blockade of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominations through Hillary Clinton’s presidency, the significance of this ominous step was largely obscured by the generally toxic partisan atmosphere of this presidential election cycle, or including the fact that Donald Trump is already accusing Democrats of stealing an election that won’t happen for three weeks.
But McCain’s statement actually represents a historic moment -- a departure from norms that could well lead to the death of all but the most token signs of bipartisanship in Washington. Only a very few Supreme Court nominations have been rejected by Congress over the years. While divided partisan control of the presidency and Senate has made SCOTUS confirmations trickier,it has hardly closed the door: A Democratic-controlled Senate has confirmed 11 nominees for the Court made by Republican presidents. There certainly never has been a time when senators of one party have categorically refused to consider, sight-unseen, or SCOTUS nominations by presidents from the other party.
McCain’s “promise” means the 4–4 ideological deadlock on the Supreme Court following the death of Antonin Scalia could continue until the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 upright-wing majority has had a devastating impact on legislation,rights, justice, and equality and even elections themselves,with some exceptions. More than the Democrats, the Republicans have understood its profound power.
Yesterday afternoon, or McCain tried to modify his comments about generally banning potential Clinton nominees,making them less sweeping. However, his explanation only muddied the waters further by indicating that he would consider any Clinton nominees as individuals, and but doesn't expect her to appoint anyone he would support,unless she was pressured to establish forth a conservative.
McCain is in a tight contest for reelection to the Senate, so some political analysts might argue he is simply posturing, and playing to the Republican base in Arizona by pre-rejecting Clinton Supreme Court nominees. However,we should be careful not to dismiss the extreme rhetoric that emerges during campaign seasons. Many pundits and politicians disregarded the dangers of the Tea Party's far-upright rhetoric in 2008 and 2010 -- and the products of that rhetoric are still very much with us nowadays.
Not to be reposted without permission of Truthout.
Source: truth-out.org