A Strong Argument For The GOP To Delay Scalia's Replacement

We all remember how Mitch almost went postal about an Obama appointment to SCOTUS..............but it was...


Mitchell McConnell, Jr., who wrote in a law review article for the Kentucky Law Journal in 1970 that:

.... the Senate should discount the philosophy of nominees....The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological direction of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and then as the Constitution puts it "to appoint."


GOP Obstruction of Obama Court Nomination -- Radical, Without Precedent -- With a Big Political Price

I guess he changed his mind……should we now call him a “flip-flopper”?

SDET said:

The GOP can say they want to carry out the wishes of the deceased:

Scalia 2012: I Would Not Like To Be Replaced By Someone Who Would Undo Everything I Did

Read more: Scalia 2012: I Would Not Like To Be Replaced By Someone Who Would Undo Everything I Did | The Daily Caller

Click to expand...

This is not a strong argument. Supreme court justices get no say in who will replace them. The appointment is made by the president and approved by the senate.

Therefore Scalia's wishes, even if he were still alive, are meaningless.

molten_dragon said:

This is not a strong argument. Supreme court justices get no say in who will replace them. The appointment is made by the president and approved by the senate.

Therefore Scalia's wishes, even if he were still alive, are meaningless.

Click to expand...

100% meaningless.

SDET said:

The GOP can say they want to carry out the wishes of the deceased:

Scalia 2012: I Would Not Like To Be Replaced By Someone Who Would Undo Everything I Did

Read more: Scalia 2012: I Would Not Like To Be Replaced By Someone Who Would Undo Everything I Did | The Daily Caller

Click to expand...

The quote...
"Scalia answered, “Well of course. I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25–26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”

Not exactly a dying wish. Not that it should matter- if Scalia intended to inhibit the process it just shows that, maybe, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
That's 'if'. I'm sure this is just a spin, some conservative trying to guilt-trip his agenda to the fore. Scalia would never, I'm sure, have intended his reply to be taken this way.