Convenient Constitutionalists

One would think that, given the outrage by the Left on the lack of willingness by Republicans to consider appointment of a replacement for Justice Scalia, that Democrats hold the Constitution as sacred.

Their feigned outrage that Republicans would violate their Constitutional obligation is disingenuous at best and a fraud at worst. In reality, this is just an attempt to paint Republicans as obstructionist and score political points with the Democrat base.

There have been numerous examples ( here, here, and here) of Democrats holding up nomination of replacements for critical Administration posts when a Republican President was in office.  Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and President Obama (the fact that he regrets his previous posture is convenient at best) have all been on record supporting the delay in nominating key appointments during the final year of a President’s term, or outright rejection of Justice nominees.

There is plenty of precedent to support the position of Senate Republicans to hold off on even considering an appointment until the next President is sworn in.  Republican or Democrat, they are obligated to do due diligence on appointees and can choose to consider or not, in full accordance with their Constitutional obligations.

Justice Antonin Scalia was a fundamentalist who gave balance to the Supreme Court.  Any appointment by the Obama Administration would likely tip the balance in favor of the judicial activist approach to interpreting the Constitution as a “living” document, subject to being modified to fit current political ideology.

The work before the current Court is vital to defining what America is or what it is to become.  It is well known that four of the current Justices view the 2nd Amendment  as not applicable to an individuals right to bear and keep arms.  Another liberal appointee would allow the revocation of this fundamental right and permanently change America.

Given the stakes in this play, the American voter should be given the opportunity to weigh in on the makeup and future direction of the Court.  Waiting will not pose significant  risk to pending decisions and will allow the will of the People to be considered.