Conservatives suffered a great loss when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died Saturday. The passing of Scalia is more than a mere death of a man. With his death, he has changed the importance of politics of the present and the future.
Scalia was found dead on a Texas ranch last Saturday. The cause of death is unknown, but is likely to be a heart attack. With his death mere hours before the GOP debate, the opening was marked with a moment of silence and Supreme Court based questions. They ranged from “Should we allow President Obama to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice?” to “Would you have a litmus test for a new Supreme Court Justice?”
In the coming months, the first question is very vital. Before Scalia’s death, the “Conservative” wing of the Supreme Court (Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito) had a narrow majority over the “Liberal Wing” of the Court (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan). Scalia was one of the most conservative members of the Court.
While adhering to statutory textualism (laws being interpreted by the letter of the law over the spirit of the law) and Constitutional originalism (interpreting the Constitution as how it was meant at the time of its creation), Scalia sided against the progression of social issues such as affirmative action and gay marriage. However, there would be times where Scalia would take less conservative views, such as Texas v. Johnson (supporting flag burning as free speech) and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (“enemy combatants” should be tried in civilian court).
Now there is a debate on whether the Republican-controlled Senate should delay and stall until (hopefully for them) a Republican is elected President, where he would nominate a more conservative judge to maintain the Conservative majority. On one hand, Democrats argue that anyone who is qualified and has a clean background should be appointed and approved with no problem. They argue that the idea that a majority would be disrupted does not disqualify the president from doing his constitutionally acceptable job.
Except, of course, if the President is a Republican. Charles C.W. Cooke, pointing out their hypocrisy, talks about how the idea of a “qualified and accomplished” candidate did not extend to Ronald Reagan’s pick, Robert Bork. Bork, who was both Solicitor General and a circuit judge for DC’s Court of Appeals, would have been completely qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet because of his far right views on abortion and the fact that his appointment would upset the balance of the Court, Senate Democrats shot down his nomination. The same logic that applied to Reagan suddenly doesn’t apply to Obama?
The next presidential election is important. Since four of the Justice would be in their late 70’s/early 80’s (Ginsberg, Scalia, Breyer, and Kennedy), the new president would be able to appoint possibly four new judges. This could shift the balance of the Court to the far left or the far right. With the death of Scalia, if the Senate manages to delay the nomination until the next president takes office, the balance would either stay the same or shift to the left. This has cemented the importance of the 2016 election.
If, dear reader, you are wise, get out to vote. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the election may change your life.
