Friday, February 26, 2016

Obama and the Senate should do their jobs with the Supreme Court, but past may not always be reliable prologue



Should President Obama appoint a “moderate” candidate for the Supreme Court and let the GOP risk a political electoral backlash if the Senate refuses to consider him or her? 

The New York Times (David M. Herszenhorn and Carl Hulse) seems to think so, as it explains today.

The Constitution says it is the president’s responsibility to nominate a replacement and get it done with the assistance of the Senate.


But the record of the past is mixed.  Joe Biden was “guilty” of the same obstructionism in 1992 for the Democrats (Washington Times).   LBJ was rebuffed non Abe Fortas but pulled strings to get Thurgood Marshall on the court (Beast). And Rubio exaggerates on the 80 year war on lame ducks (Politifact).

Jordan Weissman of Slate argues that Obama is not yet a “lame duck”. 
  

But Obama should do the nomination and let the consequences follow. 

No comments: