U.S. Congress

Controversy surrounds Supreme Court Nomination

Posted on by grager3

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on the morning of Saturday, Feb. 13, having passed away in his sleep at the age of 79. Scalia served on the Supreme Court for 30 years and consistently voted as a strong conservative.

During his presidency, Ronald Regan nominated three Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, Anthony Kennedy in 1988, and Antonin Scalia in 1986. Thirty years later, controversy is surrounding the nomination of a new Justice to replace Scalia following his death.

Historically, the President of the United States nominates Supreme Court Justices as the need arises during their presidency, and those Justices are then confirmed by the Senate. Since Scalia’s death, the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Rep.-KY), has threatened to block President Obama’s potential SCOTUS nomination and demanded that Obama’s successor, to be elected in November, makes the appointment.

“President Obama insists that he will nominate someone for the court. He certainly has the authority to do so. But let’s be clear — his nominee will be rejected by the Senate,” senator Pat Toomey (Rep.-PA) said in a Time Magazine article.

Democrats in the Senate consider this disgraceful behavior, arguing that Obama will remain in office until January 2017 and therefore must appoint a replacement for Scalia.

“By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Dem.-NV) said of Republican threats.

According to Article Two of the United States Constitution, “[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court…” This dictates that it is the President’s constitutional right and duty to appoint Justices if the Supreme Court suffers vacancies during their term. The wording of the constitution leaves little room for interpretation; the president shall, not may, nominate. This means that the Republicans denying Obama his right are technically in violation of the Constitution, making their actions illegal.

In Saturday’s Republican debate, candidates urged the Senate to delay approval on Obama’s eventual nominee. SenatorsTed Cruz (Rep.-TX) and Marco Rubio (Rep.-FL) both claimed that it has been 80 years since a Supreme Court Justice was appointed during an election year. However, they overlooked Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated in 1987, but confirmed by the Senate in February of 1988, the election year that also served as the finale of Reagan’s presidency.

With Obama’s recent legacy-building agenda, nobody is surprised he is trying to leave his mark on the Supreme Court as well. Without the ultra-conservative Justice Scalia, the court is currently in no-man’s land, with four conservatives and four liberals. The right nominee could swing the SCOTUS from conservative to liberal, a legacy every Democratic president would be itching for. And with both history and the law on his side, there is no reason Obama should not be the one to do it.

View the original story on nileswestnews.org!!

 

photo credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images

 

Deadline Extended for Year End Spending Bill

Posted on by grager3

Thursday, the Senate passed a five-day stop-gap spending bill. Said bill will extend negotiations through to December 16, to give participants more time to craft a year-end spending bill. The House of Representatives is set to vote on the bill today, Friday, December 11, where it is expected to pass, as it is considered relatively non-controversial.

Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said that the responsibility for a bill now remained with top leaders, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McCarthy, whose leadership team Senator Blunt is junior member of.

Most people have determined that there’s not much they can do about these final negotiations,” Blunt said. “That’s probably finally set in that this is going to be decided by three or four people and most of us are not one of those three or four people.”

He also said that the negotiations were not nearing a close anytime soon.

“We’re not close to a [touchdown],” Rogers said.

He seemed to believe that the extension was going to be necessary, as the it would still be cutting it very close.

“Even the five day extension is going to be really close.”\

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s White House seems relatively un-involved.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama “is certainly aware of what’s going on,” but that the bill would be decided by “members of Congress negotiating among themselves.”

This new bill would also seek to extend several expired or expiring business tax breaks and middle-class tax credits, something very important to the president’s administration.

There is hope throughout Congress that the bill will be completed by the new deadline of December 16, with a bill that has the ability to garner broad bipartisan support, and that will not be vetoed by the President when it reaches him. Although if his separation from the proceedings is any indication, President Obama seems content to approve nearly anything Congress puts in front of him.

 

 

Obama gives rare address in wake of San Bernardino shooting

Posted on by grager3

On Sunday, December 6, President Barack Obama gave a rare special address live from the Oval Office in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting. As only the third of Obama’s Oval Office speeches, the rare address emphasized the importance of the attack and the President’s placement of the issue as one of his top priorities.

The speech began with an overview of the attacks, in which a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, 29, attacked an office holiday party, killing 14. Obama said the FBI was still investigating the attacks, but affirmed that the investigation had led to no evidence that the couple were acting on orders from ISIL, or ISIS, or that they were a part of a larger terrorist cell. However, their actions were “inspired” by the terrorist group’s violent ideology.

The President then went on to explain to the American people what was being done to combat the terrorist threat both at home and overseas, as well as calling for Congress to act to do more. President Obama asked Congress to officially vote to support the airstrikes he has been ordering for over a year, and to increase gun control, which has become a staple of the President’s addresses. Specifically, Obama asked Congress to take steps to ensure that no individual on the no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun, since “no suspected terrorist should have access to an assault weapon.”

In what seemed to be the most important aspect of the speech, President Obama counseled Americans not to turn on each other, with quotes like, “The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it,” and “Freedom is more powerful than fear.” In between these well-meaning slogans, Obama asked Americans to view the world’s Muslims as “some of our strongest allies,” while reminding the American people that more Muslims are killed in terrorist attacks than any other group and only an incredibly small fraction believe in ISIL’s violent view of Islam.

Although this speech was important, it did little to highlight any real change. It mostly served to remind Americans of the President’s frequently-criticized strategy against ISIL, and to remind the people not to give in to discrimination in the wake of tragedy.