The death of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has brought the least visible branch of the American federal government to the forefront in the upcoming presidential election this year. US Supreme Court justices are appointed for life; hence the president’s nominee will shape the direction of the Court for decades. When a Supreme Court seat is vacated, the president has the responsibility to appoint a successor subject to Senate confirmation. Barack Obama has about 330 days from now to get an appointee confirmed before leaving office. There is plenty of time, but the appointment won’t come without a fight. Within hours of Scalia’s death, the president’s political opposition made its position clear. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell promised to block whomever Obama nominates and inferred that the next elected president should handle the nomination.
Whatever the outcome, Obama or his successor has an opportunity to achieve the first liberal Court since the 1960s. Conservative Republican presidents have been successful in controlling the majority of appointees for 50 years. Pro-corporate and anti-worker judgments have become more prevalent with each passing decade, although there were recent signs of warming towards key liberal positions, like the support for healthcare. Justice Scalia’s passing came at a crucial time with important cases regarding reproductive rights, labour rights, immigration and climate change awaiting final decision.
Before Scalia’s demise, the nine justices of the US Supreme Court were divided by a five-four conservative majority which resulted in a series of decisions influenced by a conservative interpretation of the law. Presidents like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, all appointed conservative justices. As a result of the lengthy period of imbalance, the Supreme Court has drifted ever further to the right. Just the absence of Scalia’s vote on sensitive issues such as gun control and abortion could result in a change in verdict.
In the case of a four-to-four split decision, the Court most often issues a ruling to support the lower court’s decision. There are 10 per cent more Democratic appointees than Republican appointees in the lower appeals courts. Most frequently, nominations take place in the beginning of a president’s term. Liberal justices resign, at the start of a Democratic presidency and conservative justices tend to resign at the start of a Republican presidency, thus allowing the president to pick like-minded successors.
The US Supreme Court serves as the solution to gridlocks. For instance, during the 2000 presidential election, there was a gridlock over the tight results and suspected voter fraud. The issue was eventually taken up by the Supreme Court. Even though many disagreed with the Court’s ruling to halt the vote recount, its decision effectively gave George W Bush the presidency. The decision was accepted since the US Constitution is absolute and the Supreme Court is considered its voice.
American politics are more polarised than they have been in decades. Obama, or his successor, is in a position to define the ideological balance of the Supreme Court and also to transform US law for a generation. With a now evenly divided court, Scalia’s replacement will have exceptional power to reshape application of the laws and set a lasting legal precedent. There is no doubt that there are high stakes at play in the US presidential election, which are now more apparent than ever.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 22nd, 2016.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
Yes, te death of Honorable Judge Scalia came at a wrong time. And any Obama recommendation for the new judge, can and will be rejected due to Republican Majority in te Senate. But now there are lots of highly regarded NRI judges available in the USA and would be likely considered.
just checking to see if anybody pays attention to such writings…None! and that tells us that those who write in english are simply wasting their time and trying to appear somehow “educated”..its fashion..learn to write in urdu…you are DESI..walk talk dress eat DESI…Pakistan is farangi infested…let us exterminate this virus.
According to US media 3 Indo-Americans are in race.
Nicely explained.
When a Supreme Court seat is vacated, the president has the responsibility to appoint a successor subject to Senate confirmation.
Sorry madam; the President does not appoint but simply nominates and it is the peoples congress which appoints or rejects the proposed nominee for the Supreme Court seat. However, regardless of the political halla baloo, the key task of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution as and when requested to intervene. The USA democracy has a constitution which requres constant interpretation of the Supreme court justices, the President of the country having the execuive authority to break the existing laws at his pleasure. Too bad for the unpopular Mr Obama, his good nominee will be rejected. .
Rex Minor
Dear All whether we like it or not, Sri Srinivasan, Preet Bharara are the viable candidates from India and sub continent. The merits of the candidates are there , unfortunately Pakistanis cannot digest the same.
Contrary to the political pundits views, the U.S. SC decisions were always of intellectual in nature and are apolitical. Even when the SC bench had the majority nominated by republicans, the decisons were very constitutional. Of late, the opinion on Obama care, Hilary Vs citizens United, Gay marriage unions and so on are examples of how the court viewed the issues. The confirmation of nominees are political mileage opportunity, but the justices themselves are apolitical in their decisons. I can’t remeber one instance of the past 100 years were the decison was considered biased due to individual justice’s political view.
As far as Gore Vs Bush, there is an incorrect opinion expressed in this article. The U.S. SC did not intervene and did not stop the vote counting. It was Al Gore’s campaign’s decision to approach the SC and selectively asked for recounting in select counties instead of whole FL state. The U.S. SC has no jurisdiction on election laws of individual state. The mode of recounting was agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant in conjunction with FL election board, the U.S. SC did not influence or mandate the counting or the manner of counting.
To date the US SC decisons were fair interpretations of the constitution and where it mattered most the court took the letter and spirit of the constitution above all else, whether government, individual or corporations were the plaintiff.
The current drama is more of political mileage in congress and will have no impact on who gets appointed. Obama will nominate some, and senate has to eventually approve in the next 350 days. They can’t sit on it forever. In the meantime each political party will gain maximum political mileage.
@John B:
To date the US SC decisons were fair interpretations of the constitution and where it mattered most the court took the letter and spirit of the constitution above all else, whether government, individual or corporations were the plaintiff.
Then it should be renamed to a Constitution Court instead of being called the Supreme Court. and stop the display of the Moses head on the building. Besides, one does not require intellectuals for the job of a Supreme court Justice, but having the highest qualfications in law, and the record in hgh morals and ethics to be able to oversee the decisions of the lower courts.
Rex Minor
@Prakash-US:
Please do not overestimate influence of Indo-Americans. Most of them are AMERICANs born in USA and “remote” candidates for appleate courts and not for US Supreme Court! In all probability an qualified Afro-American would be a person!