New York Times
By Mark Landler and Jennifer Steinhauer
February 16, 2016
President
Obama on Tuesday challenged Republicans to offer a plausible rationale
for refusing to consider a Supreme Court candidate to replace Justice
Antonin Scalia,
and he pledged to nominate someone with an “outstanding legal mind” who
cares about democracy and the rule of law.
“The
Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Mr.
Obama said during a news conference after a meeting in California with
leaders of Southeast
Asia. He said the Constitution demanded that a president nominate
someone for the court and the Senate either confirms or rejects.
“There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off
years,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not in the constitutional
text.”
But
Mr. Obama — who defended his own role in an effort to block a
confirmation vote on Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005 — said he understood
the political stakes of a nomination
that could change the balance on the court. “I understand the pressure
that Republican senators are now under,” he said. “This would be a
deciding vote.”
Mr.
Obama’s remarks were his first extensive public reaction to the
political forces unleashed by the death last weekend of Justice Scalia,
and they offered a glimpse
of how he intends to use the power of the presidency to raise pressure
on Republicans to hold hearings on whomever he nominates for the court.
The
president spoke hours after Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of
Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he had not
ruled out holding hearings
on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the
Supreme Court.
Mr.
Grassley’s comments were a modest backtracking of what he said over the
weekend, when he concurred with Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority
leader, as well as several
other Republican senators, who said the Senate should take no action on
Mr. Obama’s nominee and the vacancy ought to be filled by the next
president.
On
Tuesday, Mr. Grassley indicated some leeway. Although he still believes
that the next president ought to name Justice Scalia’s replacement, “I
would wait until the
nominee is made before I would make any decisions,” Mr. Grassley said,
according to Radio Iowa.
Members
of his staff did not say why Mr. Grassley, who is in Iowa during a
congressional recess, stepped ever so slightly back. But Mr. Grassley,
who has long prided himself
on embodying the good governance ethos of Iowa, found himself the
subject of criticism on Tuesday in an editorial in the state’s largest
newspaper, The Des Moines Register.
“This
could have been a ‘profile in courage’ moment for Senator Grassley,”
the paper wrote before Mr. Grassley’s remarks. “This was an opportunity
for our senior senator
to be less of a politician and more of a statesman. It was a chance for
him to be principled rather than partisan.”
At
least one other Republican in his home state for the recess appeared
worried about a potential backlash if the Senate refused to consider Mr.
Obama’s nominee.
Senator
Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, told a local radio show that
Republicans “fall into the trap of being obstructionists” if they
reject any nominee “sight
unseen.”
Other
Republicans feared the spectacle of Supreme Court hearings in the
middle of an unpredictable presidential campaign. Mr. McConnell had
hoped to keep a dutiful schedule
of bland bills and low drama in the Senate this year.
“Most
every Republican has to feel like in this really robust election year,
with all the fighting and back and forth going on, that this is not the
time to have a battle
over a Supreme Court nominee,” Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of
Utah and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, told NPR Tuesday.
In
his remarks in California, Mr. Obama acknowledged the endless partisan
warfare: “We’ve almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the
Senate has become when it
comes to nominations.”
Whether
Mr. Grassley would be able to hold hearings when Mr. McConnell and
others are balking is an open question. Mr. McConnell has emphasized
that committee chairmen
have considerable autonomy under his leadership. But Mr. Grassley will
no doubt feel pressure on multiple fronts, including from Democrats,
with whom he has had good relations on the committee.
Some
quickly seized on Mr. Grassley’s remarks as evidence of what they think
will be growing pressure on Republicans to at least hold hearings on
any nominee Mr. Obama
brings forward.
“Senator
Grassley’s statement indicates that our Republican colleagues are
moving, as they must eventually, toward obeying the Constitution in
holding hearings and a vote
on the president’s Supreme Court nominee,” said Senator Richard
Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
“Rejecting
this constitutional obligation will rightly prompt public outcry and
outrage — eventually forcing the right outcome,” he continued,. “The
Republican leadership
can spare the court and the country damage by doing the right thing.”
Even
before Mr. Obama spoke, the Washington advocacy machine had roared to
life in anticipation of the most consequential Supreme Court fight in a
generation.
Republicans
and Democrats are arguing over whether President Obama, whose term
expires in 342 days, should try to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat.
Representatives
from dozens of liberal organizations convened a conference call Tuesday
afternoon to coordinate the attacks on Republicans for refusing to even
consider
a nominee. The groups plotted outreach to opinion makers, op-ed
articles and direct lobbying, according to several who participated.
“This
is going to be of a different order,” said Frank Sharry, the executive
director of America’s Voice, an immigration group that was represented
on the call.
Some
editorial boards of newspapers in purple or swing states around the
country criticized Republican incumbents who had sided with Mr.
McConnell.
“Regrettably,
Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this
year in a state that Mr. Obama won twice, has adopted his party’s
indefensible line,”
read an editorial in The Toledo Blade. “On Monday, Senator Portman
cited a nonbinding ‘rule’ that says the Senate should not confirm a
justice during a presidential election year. But in 1988, the
Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy
during President Ronald Reagan’s final full year in office.”
Mr.
Obama also dipped into the recent history of the Senate, noting the
long history of each party opposing judicial nominees, and acknowledging
his own opposition to
Judge Alito. “I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial
nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any
single party,” he said. But, he added, “What is also true is Justice
Alito is on the bench right now.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment