The Importance Of Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 12th 2016. He had served 29 years on the Supreme Court, and many years on lower courts (Biography.com Editors). The death of Scalia left an associate justice chair open on the Supreme Court. President Obama nominated an individual to fill the vacancy left by Scalia, but this was strongly opposed by Republican Senators. Republican Senators have vowed to block an Obama nomination from receiving a vote or even a hearing. This paper will address the senate’s attempt to block a nomination by the president, whether this is unprecedented and constitutionally legal, and the effect this will have on the court and possible court decisions. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have already been nominated and confirmed …show more content…
Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan on November 12th, 1987 to fill the seat vacated by Lewis Powell (Aisch, Gregor, et. al, 2016). Regan had already nominated two individuals, Bork and Ginsburg, for the position before Kennedy. Bork was too far right to be confirmed by the Senate, and lost on a vote of 58-42. Ginsburg’s admission to the use of Marijuana led to his withdraw from consideration (Greenhouse, Linda. 1987). President Reagan, facing a Democratic Senate, knew that he needed to appoint an individual that would appeal to everyone. Kennedy being a moderate candidate that leaned right seemed like the perfect fit. However, Senator Grassley from Iowa held very strong beliefs on the issue, stating that, “'There's been a basic compromise of principle that's not satisfying to me, but I suppose I’m resigned. There’s a practical aspect.” (Greenhouse, Linda. 1987) That aspect being getting a slightly conservative justice on the court. When asked if Reagan had other options than compromising Grassley replied, ''If I were President of the United States, I think I'd figure one out.'' (Greenhouse, Linda. 1987) Political consultant Richard Viguerie called the Kennedy nomination, ''a total surrender to the left.'' (Greenhouse, Linda. 1987) Kennedy went on to vote and was confirmed unanimously 97-0 with Senator Grassley and McConnell …show more content…
Republicans argue that this is not relevant due to the fact that the seat became available during late 1987, and not during an election year. Marco Rubio states, “It doesn't really matter what they've done, what Reagan did back in '87. It was in '87 when he nominated him, so obviously it was still earlier in the year. If this was November, October or September of last year where the president had more than a year left in office, then perhaps this would be a different discussion,” (Coleburn, Christina. 2016) Republicans are arguing that there should be a cut-off of the president’s constitutional power when there is less than a year left in his presidency. This is absurd, and makes little to no sense. Why would the president’s powers change at the one-year mark? They wouldn’t, Republicans make this argument in order to appear as if following precedent when in reality they made up and manipulated the one-year rule for their own gain. Also, we see that Democrats are willing to have hearings and confirm nominees to the Supreme Court. The Democrats may not confirm extremely conservative candidates, but they are willing to compromise and confirm someone who is moderate, such as Kennedy. This is extremely important in comparing to today due to the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate and confirmed a moderate conservative, and did not refuse to complete their