For those of us who’ve lived long enough to endure decades of a majority GOP Supreme Court, the death of Antonin Scalia is a monumental event. It is a watershed not just for Republicans who desperately wish to hang on to that majority and protect the role the Court has played in frustrating important planks in the liberal agenda; but also for Democrats who’ve chafed for what seems like eons at the rubber-stamp the Court has issued to the right-wing political agenda. Remember the outrage of Bush v. Gore, anyone? How long have Democrats waited to avenge that bit of judicial jiggery-pokery, to quote the late Justice Scalia himself.
Scalia’s death has taken a presidential race that was the height of silly season and suddenly turned it very sober, very fast. If the next president is a Democrat (perhaps even serving eight years in office) and nominates the next two or three justices, it may guarantee a liberal majority on the court for a decade or more into the future.
Think of the issues that the Court either has ruled on in the past or that it may/will rule on in future: abortion, immigration, health reform, campaign financing, environmental regulation, gun rights, employment rights, voting rights, human rights, Guantanamo, NSA spying, targeted killing. In many of these cases, the Court over the past few decades has ruled against a liberal agenda. If a Democratic president names Scalia’s replacement, much of that opposition may either evaporate entirely, or dissipate significantly.
Of course, given the Republican majority in Congress and the nature of this president, any nominee put forward will have to be a centrist, perhaps even a moderate Republican in the mode of Anthony Kennedy. But given how tenuous the logjam Obama faces with this Congress, replacing Scalia with even a moderate would be a vast improvement.
The Republicans are so distraught that Mitch McConnell even pre-empted the President’s own statement on the Justice’s death. He laid down the gauntlet and said no-way, no-how would Obama get to nominate a justice. Given how obstructionist the Republicans have been, I wouldn’t have expected anything different. But this gives Obama a huge political opening. He can nominate a moderate to whose candidacy the Republicans should at least offer a hearing, while at the same time beating them over the head with their refusal to do their constitutional duty.
McConnell’s lame argument is now that the American people know of the Court opening, they should have an opportunity to vote for the presidential candidate of the Party they wish to replace Scalia. But that’s not how the Constitution works. In fact, the last President who filled a Supreme Court seat in his final year in office was Ronald Reagan in 1988. So indeed, even lame duck president’s have seated new justices.
There is so little going for the current crop of GOP candidates, that the Party’s refusal to hold hearings on a new justice in Obama’s term will make things even worse for them. For Democrats, this political development is a golden opportunity if it’s played correctly (and Obama has shown himself a master at outmaneuvering his Congressional opponents).
However, there are some landmines. Michael Bloomberg waits in the wings. He will surely join the race if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination and Trump wins the Republican, seeing himself as the only moderate in the race. If Clinton wins, I see much less reason for him to join. With a Sanders-Trump-Bloomberg race, depending on the sort of race Sanders and Bloomberg run, the latter could be a formidable opponent. If the former New York mayor runs an energetic, well-articulated campaign and Bernie doesn’t succeed in expanding his current liberal-left base, either Bloomberg could win or Trump could win (if the moderate vote is split between Bloomberg and Sanders).
That empty Supreme Court seat (if the GOP succeeds in stopping a nomination from proceeding) could add gravitas to the Bloomberg campaign.
And the US calls itself a democracy?
@ Jack Cohen: 10 times the “democracy” Israel is.
The United States is 240 years old and surrounded by placid neighbors and vast oceans.
Israel is 66 years old and is surrounded by implacable foes and wire fences.
@Barbar
Implacable foes? Who are you trying to kid? Much as the Israeli government has tried to downplay it the Arab Peace Initiative is now fairly widely known. And talking about fences surrounding Israel is the purest chutzpah. The fence your countrymen built is even more widely known than the Arab Peace Initiative.
“The initiative says unequivocally that all Arab countries would announce the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, sign peace treaties with Israel, and institute normal relations with Israel. In return, Israel would withdraw to the June 4, 1967 border (the Green Line). The State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem, would be established. The refugee problem would be solved by agreement (meaning agreement with Israel).
As I wrote at the time, if anyone had told us in May 1967 that the Arab world would make such an offer, they would have been locked up in an institution for the mentally ill. But those of us who advocated the acceptance of the Arab initiative were branded as traitors.
In his conference with the Arab ministers this week, John Kerry succeeded in pushing them a step further. They agreed to add that the 1967 Green Line may be changed by swaps of territories. This means that the large settlements along the border, where the great majority of the settlers reside, would be annexed to Israel, in return for largely inferior Israeli land.
When the initiative was first aired, the Israeli government was desperately looking for a way out
The first excuse that sprang to mind – then as always – was the refugee problem. It is easy to create panic in Israel with the nightmare of millions of refugees “flooding” Israel, putting an end to the Jewishness of the Jewish State.
Sharon, the Prime Minister at the time, willfully ignored the crucial clause inserted by the Saudis into their plan: that there would be an “agreed” solution. This clearly means that Israel was accorded the right to veto any solution. In practice, this would amount to the return of a symbolic number, if any at all.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/03/the-arab-peace-initiative/
I not going over this again. I’ll just say, ‘Lebanese rider’.
‘Lebanese rider’, ah I see what you mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3c-JAORGQ
…”surrounded by implacable foes and wire fences.”
All of your own doing, but you try to present it as though all of that just fell from the sky: Poor little peace-loving Israel, minding its own business, and doing great things for the whole world all the time, but the ‘implacable foes’ spoil everything, just because they hate the Jews more than they love their own children etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Do they actually teach this in school?
While Bibi’s rhetoric are a bit too much for me, pretending neighboring Arab countries are just waiting for Israel to welcome them to make peace is silly.
For people of different nations, Arab countries have made impressive efforts throughout the ages to support the Palestinians. Can anyone think of an example where so many nations helped a nation not for self-interests but b/c it is justice.
If not, what are we missing here?
@ Jack Cohen: History is filled with examples of nations which aided or even went to war with other nations in order to protect an ally, whose alliance was based on altruism & ethnic solidarity, rather than pure self interest.
But in truth the Arab states have for years offered Israel compromise solutions to resolve the conflict–all of which Israel has rejected almost out of hand.
“Arab countries have made impressive efforts throughout the ages to support the Palestinians. ”
Really? Lip service is all the Palestinians got as far as I can see. What are those ‘impressive efforts’?
Richard – “History is filled with examples… to protect an ally”
But that isn’t the case here. Even if you argue there is a nation called Palestinian, it hasn’t been its own entity/government/kingdom since ever. How can you ally with a non existing entity?
They are all Arabs and have it not for Europeans, the borders and nations in the ME would have looked completely different today. (This statement does NOT diminish any possible claim the Arabs may or may not have for the land).
Fact is, Arab countries around don’t just ‘help an allay’ but rather wish Israel to get out of land that belong to them (or their brothers). AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT BIBI WAS TALKING ABOUT.
@ Jack COhen: Jack, Jack, you clearly haven’t read the comment rules as you were directed to do before you published your first comment. Now go and do that right now before you write another word here.
Palestine denial is a banning offense. So no one has to argue here “if” there is a Palestinian nation. There IS. If you don’t buy that you don’t belong here. And I’ll be happy to escort you to the exit if you fail to respect the comment rules. Stop with the sophistry about whether Palestine exists and whether it is an entity, government or kingdom. Meaningless sophistries.
You’re on very thin ice, Jack. Be warned.
@ Barbar: Learn a bit of U.S. history: we fought wars with all our major neighbors (Mexico, Canada, even Cuba). Not to mention that our country was built on conquest, expulsion & violence. Just like yours. So we can see the warning signs a mile away in your case.
@Richard
I’ll stick to my guns, thank you, and go one step further. There has never been an attempted foreign invasion of the United States in all it’s history.
The ‘War of 1812’ was a mere raid, and Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were attacks with no invasion plans.
Yes, Richard . The United States did invade Mexico and Cuba, not to mention Panama, Grenada and the Dominican Republic, all the while completing the extirpation of the Native American population.
Now that Lincoln freed the chattel slaves and once full voting rights were given to women and African Americans, yeah, you can now make the argument that the United States is 10x democratic than Israel.
@ Barbar: Please no guns here. Especially since you know so little about American history. I’m afraid you might fire that thing & blow off your big toe.
In 1812, the British INVADERS burned down the White House. Can you imagine an Israeli enemy burning down the Prime Minister’s office or Kirya and claiming that was no foreign invasion??
The U.S. has never been as anti-democratic in its entire history as Israel is now. Israel’s anti-democracy is inexcusable in any context.
We didn’t “extirpate” the Native Americans. They still exist. Brush up your Shakespeare…and your English.
Yet, one man, even if he is the president, can deeply influence the ruling of the court for decades to come. The institute that is responsible of balancing the government power.
So what do we learn? Democracy isn’t black or white but rather a balance. In every system if you stick to one small detail you can present it as a dictatorship but it is the broader picture that tells you the whole story.
Why are many liberals pro-choice but anti-gun? B/C they believe that is right balance between free will and chaos, not B/C democracy means do whatever you want.
@ Jack Cohen:
Oh Lord, if you’ve done any reading here you’ve read tens of thousands of “small details” which present Israel as an anti-democratic theocratic mess. And those small details combine to make a “broader picture” that is quite accurate.
Not only Americans but many people all over the world followed Bush vs Gore with bated breath. I was one of them. I remember that the only amusingly acid account of the proceedings I could find in those days was Maureen Dowd’s description of them. I have been able to find it again. Here is a fragment:
“CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST. Mr. Boies, you fail to grasp the concept of equal protection for the conservative justices who want to retire. I’m 76. Sandy is 70. We started out long ago, working our hearts out for Barry Goldwater, and we’re pooped. My back is killing me! But we can’t leave until we install a Republican president. Al Gore would replace us with that hippy-dippy Mario Cuomo or that flower child Larry Tribe, or some minority who actually cares about the rights of the dispossessed.
JUSTICE GINSBURG. Mr. Boies — may I call you David? — I love you.
JUSTICE SCALIA. Ruthie, zip it. Mr. Boies, as you surely have noticed by now, I am the Big Brain here. So I will explain what should be res ipsa loquitor, not to mention a priori. We stopped the vote-counting because if we did not, Al Gore might have won. Then I would never have had a chance to be chief justice.
I have put up with so much hokum. When they upheld Roe v. Wade. When they made all-male military academies admit women. I became bitter and marginalized. Never mind Al Gore’s due process. What am I due in this process?
MR. KLOCK. If I may, Justice Brandeis —
JUSTICE SCALIA. I’m Scalia, dimwit. To continue, it may look hypocritical if the court’s conservatives suppress the will of the people and install a states’-rights president by federal fiat. I know I have spent my career fighting against muscular assertions of judicial power. But now I see that judicial tyranny, judiciously used, can be a good thing. I don’t believe in making laws from the bench. But making presidents? That’s different. Hey, who ever said the Constitution is engraved in stone, anyhow? Text is important, but so is subtext. Why should I prop up a pathetic pol who vilified Clarence and me during his campaign?
This court is riddled with conflicts of interest. Clarence’s wife, Ginny, is over at the Heritage Foundation gathering conservatives’ resumes for possible appointments in the new administration. My son is a partner at Ted Olson’s law firm. Another son just got hired by another law firm working for Bush. But if I had recused myself, there would have been a tie. And then those radicals on the Florida Supreme Court could have been affirmed. And President Gore might have made Ruthie the chief.
JUSTICE THOMAS (to himself). If this thing runs long, I’m going to miss ”Trailer Park Nurses” and ”Room Servicing” on the Spice channel.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/13/opinion/liberties-the-bloom-is-off-the-robe.html
Palestinians. Can anyone think of an example where so many nations helped a nation not for self-interests but b/c it is justice.
If not, what are we missing here?”
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. The first sentence seems to imply that the offer is not genuine (where have we heard that before – why don’t you take us to altogether familiar territory by adding “they only come up with this in contacts with the world outside – to their own people they say quite different things”).
The second sentence seems to imply that the (non-genuine) offer is based on self interest anyway. Do we have non-genuine self interest here as well?
Somehow the top of my letter disappeared. Here is the complete version:
@Jack Cohen you wrote:
“While Bibi’s rhetoric are a bit too much for me, pretending neighboring Arab countries are just waiting for Israel to welcome them to make peace is silly.
For people of different nations, Arab countries have made impressive efforts throughout the ages to support the Palestinians. Can anyone think of an example where so many nations helped a nation not for self-interests but b/c it is justice.
If not, what are we missing here?”
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. The first sentence seems to imply that the offer is not genuine (where have we heard that before – why don’t you take us to altogether familiar territory by adding “they only come up with this in contacts with the world outside – to their own people they say quite different things”).
The second sentence seems to imply that this (non-genuine) offer is based on self interest anyway. Do we have non-genuine self interest here as well
Arie, with “If not, what are we missing here?”Jack Cohen is trying to suggest that the real reason why the Arab countries support the Palestinans is hatred for Jews.
The “throughout the ages”is a giveaway here (although totally ridiculous) and the “Can anyone think of an example where so many nations….” also, because the dogma is that anti-Semitism is the oldest hatred in the world and the most widespread.
That is what he is really trying to say, even if he has torture history to do it; The Arab nations are Jew haters and that is the underlying motivation for their”impressive” efforts “throughout the ages” for the Palestinans.
Elisabeth
That seems a very likely interpretation and I find it very clever of you that you picked that up. I didn’t, partly because I thought that in his own muddled way he genuinely tried to say something. So he didn’t. He just wanted to insinuate.
The main heuristic then in trying to decipher what these guys are saying is to assume collective paranoia. That holds for Barbar too with his “lebanese rider”.
Yes, and Barabar shares this obsession with ‘Lebanese rider’ with Lost Dutchman, who (I think) was banned a while ago.
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/10/12/clinton-and-sanders-fiddle-while-palestine-burns/
Why would Barbar say he is not going over this ‘again’, I wonder.
The leading paranoiac:
“Although the head of Military Intelligence, Maj. General Herzl Halevi, has told Netanyahu’s cabinet that feelings of rage and frustration, especially among younger Palestinians who feel that they have nothing to lose, are part of the reason for the wave of terror attacks in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the prime minister is having none of it.
“Terrorism doesn’t stem from frustration due to the lack of progress in the peace process,” Netanyahu has told the Knesset. “Terrorism stems from the will to have us exterminated.””
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.703808?date=1455769170274