SUPREME COURT: Next Steps? ﻿

SUPREME COURT: Next Steps?

2/29/2016

Based on our class conversation and the articles you read for HW respond to the following:

What responsibility (if any) do the President and Congress have to the American people in holding hearings and approving a new member of the Supreme Court?

You can start a unique thread or respond to a classmate, but remember the best discussion is one that responds to other people!

58 Comments

Hazel Yaktubay

2/29/2016 12:12:35 pm

When it comes down to electing a new member of the Supreme Court, everything should be taken very seriously. Since the Supreme Court deals with major cases and it stands as the highest level, the decisions made by the Justices affect all citizens. It is a presidents job to nominate a new contender that he/she feels will do right by the law. The congress needs to be open to all recommendations that the president makes. In President Obama's case, the congress in not allowing him to nominate any individuals for various reasons. One reason we focused on in class was the assumption that Obama would pick a liberal since he is apart of the Democratic party. If the Justices of the Supreme Court are neutral in their political standings (as people say they are) then I don't see why Congress would use Obama's Democratic standing as an excuse to turn his nomination down. Along with Obama's political views, the number of current Supreme Justices that have been picked by Obama was also brought into consideration. Both Sotomayor and Kagan have been chosen by Obama and if he nominates another, this would be this third Justice. Im not sure how important the role of numbers is here, but I assume its not a major issue. The President and Congress have to come to an agreement about who will replace Justice Scalia before more cases are affected.Scalia's Originalist is a perfect example of how Justices make their decisions based off of their beliefs. If we have too many liberals or too many conservatives on the panel, we would become a very corrupt country. Its congress' responsibility to keep a balance in the Supreme Court. But its also their responsibility to let the President practice his/her duties.

Crystal Hernandez

2/29/2016 05:06:29 pm

I agree with Hazel's claim to some extent. I do believe that the election of the new Supreme Court member should be taken more seriously and that Congress has proven to be irresponsible in its decision to refuse to hold a hearing to determine whether or not they will approve Obama's nominee. With that being said, the President and Congress have a constitutional responsibility and duty with the American people in holding hearings and appointing a new Supreme Court Justice. It is the Presidents job to nominate a new potential Supreme Court Justice and it is Congress' job to essentially put a check on the President by approving or disproving his decision. However, the checks and balance system is flawed in the sense that no check is placed on Congress to the point where Supreme Court Cases are being placed on hold or receiving unjust verdicts due to the missing Supreme Court Justice on the bench as an immediate result of Scalia's death. This issue is overwhelmingly significant because Supreme Court Justices are appointed to serve for life and the results of these Supreme Court Cases have direct effects on the American people. However, although it may seem like Congress is refusing to take Obama's nominee into consideration based on party rivalry I believe that Congress, predominantly made up of Republicans, has failed to abide by the supreme law of the land due to the intersectionality between politics and personal preference. The amount of hatred that Congress has toward Barack Obama has allowed Congress to deviate from their constitutional duties without precaution. They have refused to accept any of Obama's decisions throughout his term and have proven to have bigger issues with our President aside from clear politically opposing parties. My issue with this situation is that the representatives we voted for are not allowing the President we elected for two terms to do his job. They are affecting us directly and can not be checked by us because we have an even number of justices on the bench. Thus' no verdict will be determined, especially in an election year. Congress is playing its cards very sneakily and they are succeeding. The new question is who are they representing, who's interests are they looking out for?

Calvin Herman

2/29/2016 06:40:43 pm

I agree with Crystal's point that the Congress has the responsibility to hold a hearing to approve or disapprove President Obama's Supreme Court justice nominees. An interesting observation--or rather, a plausible theory--here is that the Republicans' contempt for Mr. Obama got in the way of the political process, which led me to question: Has the Congress misused its power? How would checks and balances work in this particular scenario? As we almost reach the pinnacle of the election season, it might appear as if the Congress was making a prudent solution by waiting for the next elected POTUS to nominate a Supreme Court justice in order to diminish some tensions in the capital and throughout the nation. Again, as previously mentioned, this is very irresponsible because Americans voted for these officials to represent them, fulfilling their duty in a representative democratic country. To respond to Crystal's question, it is difficult to determine the reason why the Congress chose to refuse to even consider Mr. Obama's nominees. It is probable that they are awaiting the election of a Republican president and let this candidate choose the Supreme Court justice nominee.

Sinead Kiernan

2/29/2016 06:53:51 pm

I agree with both statements above, where it is clear that the conflict of interest that pertains to the president's nomination of a supreme court judge and Congress' approval. It is clear that there are many complications to the matter of who has the power in this situation, or rather more power in this situation. As Congress are holding back on allowing President Obama to submit any nominations, even a nomination that appeals to the majority beliefs, it is clear that there is an abuse to the power, ultimately discarding the checks and balances the government instills its trust in. Similarly to the previous statements, it is evident that there are many discrepancies within this situation, and it ultimately affects upcoming cases, elections, and politics. Crystal raises a good question about why Congress is abusing the power. With 2016 being an election year, one possibility of the abuse of power is the potential for a Republican president, thus more likely a conservative judge. Additionally, even if the new elected president is Democrat, there is a possibility that a possible nomination could flip or even lean more conservatively. Ultimately, it seems that Congress is holding onto a slight chance of the vote steering towards the majority belief.

joe

3/7/2016 08:48:41 am

I concur with what is being said about the fact that both the congress and the president have a responsibility and duty for the country to elect a new member for the supreme court of justice. With issues always being brought up in the supreme court-abortion, immigration and voting rights- it is not right to have a 4:4 vote possibility in which would cause the case to be dropped from the court and therefore not be a solution to these important cases. Not only that, but congress must respect the constitution and the presidency of Barrack Obama by not refusing to acknowledge a nomination from President Obama and fulfilling its responsibility that they owe to the people they elected. In addition, we must also vote and stop believing that our vote does not count because if we vote for the right people for congress, we wouldn’t have this issue of the congress abusing its power and not allowing the government as a whole to do its job because at the end of the day, the laws that are determined by the supreme court affect us and our future generations and those laws need to be created with a full functional supreme court member team.

Marie Verdi

3/1/2016 04:47:58 pm

I agree with Hazel. The Supreme Court is ultimately one of the main contributors to the changes we make to our country as a whole.That being said it's imperative that in light of Scalia's death, that president Obama must nominate a new justice in order to complete the full group of nine individuals. I remember in article two where it states that there are many decisions that must be registered this year and without Scalia's presence or the introduction of a new nominee, there will be many complications as it'll all be a 4-4 tie for each vote on issues such as immigration and abortion. Some have the absurd idea that they should wait until the election is over, following the words Joe Biden spoken nearly 24 years ago. I feel like this is a terrible move. These things can't just be left on the table for a whole year. First of all it's a waste of time especially if it's crucial for the country, also in some articles, Scalia's death caused a few previous decisions to enter issues as they were still being debated prior to his death. If there is no new nominee presented, there will be many complications. For instance, regarding the issue of immigration, the case United States vs Texas is on the table and determines what will become of the Obama administration and it's support for undocumented immigrants. I feel like as of now it's more based on the rivalry between parties. While it's important there is fairness in the court, it's important to remember that they are meant to decide what's best for the country and in moments like this it's imperative that they make the right choice and allow a new nominee to be introduced.

Glismarie Rivera

3/5/2016 06:20:54 pm

I strongly agree with Hazel's claim. The supreme court should be able to open up to all options if they want to elect a new supreme court justice, and if they are politically "neutral" as they claim they are, then why do they worry about Obama electing a liberal as the new justice? Like what Crystal had said about Obama before, it IS the president's job to appoint a new supreme court justice. Without a supreme court justice, many important cases such as abortion rights and workers' unions could be jeopardized, including the DREAM act. The DREAM act is basically an American Legislature that proposes a lengthy process in which immigrants are allowed to come to the U.S and and be able to live there, and upon further documentations, permanently reside there. So without a Supreme Court Justice to handle all of these major cases, the rights of American citizens today can be changed either positively or negatively.

Darelis Moran

2/29/2016 06:05:19 pm

I strongly agree with Hazel's argument in respect to the current polemic regarding the replacement for the supreme court judge Scalia after his recent death. Like Hazel I believe that the congress should be more open and considerate towards the proposals president Obama makes not only concerning this issue, but any other national conflict. Even though there will be elections for a new president later this year, Obama is still the president and as head of the executive branch he should be allowed to make his final decisions with no extreme opposition from congress. I feel like congress as head of the legislative branch is abusing its power because like mentioned in class, they have opposed most of president Obama proposals. The government should be more cooperative and should attempt to come into consensus on at least major issues like the current problem with scalia's death. There shouldn't be constant rivalry between the major branches because they have a very important role which is to led the supreme land, so constant rivalry and discussion can led to chaos. Like Hazel mentioned there needs to be a balance within the government between conservative and liberal ideologies so that this balance can maintain order.

Tania Hussain

2/29/2016 08:58:08 pm

I agree with Hazel's and Darelis' argument about the situation going on between Obama and the congress. I believe that the congress is misusing its power since they are not allowing Obama the right to nominate a new supreme court judge. The congress believes that President Obama might elect a liberal judge. Therefore, by not allowing Obama to elect a judge, there is a likely chance that the congress will be able to elect a conservative judge. This misuse of power is unfair. The President and Congress, both, have a responsibility to the American people in holding hearings and approving a new member of the Supreme Court. However, both, have failed to come to a consensus on who is allowed to become the new Supreme Court judge replacing Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia's death is being disregarded due to the rivalry going on between the Congress and Obama. Without a new Supreme Court judge, there will be a lack of democracy in America. It is essential for there to be an equal balance of power between the congress and the president.

Tania

2/29/2016 06:44:59 pm

The Congress claims they are protecting the interest to the citizens. However, my interpretation of their refusal to allow President Obama to nominate a candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court due to the ideological differences between President Obama and Republicans is that they are protecting their own interest by undermining the authority of President Obama. They are using the circumstance by which the unfortunate death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia occurred, in the midst of presidential election, as an excuse to prevent President Obama from nominating a new member for Supreme Court Justice in fear that he will elect a liberal candidate. Congress is ignoring the fact that allowing the Supreme Court of Justice to go a year (the new president is not sworn until next year) without a 9th member places at risk the democracy of this nation. Going back to Crystal’s point, there needs to be a check on Congress, there needs be a line drawn between political ideology and personal preference because allowing such vacancy in the highest level of justice renounces their responsibility with the constitution. I agree with Hazel when she says that the Congress’s responsibility is to keep a balance in the Supreme Court, but it is also their responsibility to allow the President to exercise its constitutional duty. As we discussed in class, Scalia was a conservative who believed that the Constitution should be interpreted as it has been written. The Founding Father gave the president the authority to nominate a candidate, in not allowing he/she to exercise such power, demoralizes their legacy. In the end, Congress has the power to accept or reject the nominee. I think the Republicans are being unethical when handling such an important situation. Is it really the Congress place to dictate whether Obama should excise the constitutional power granted to him as president?

Nicholas Paleologos

2/29/2016 07:47:39 pm

It's easy for us to look at the current situation as predominantly Democratic members of society and perceive it with bitter and rancor. However, it is important to realize that we only feel so strongly about the Republican members of Congress refusing to make an undoubtedly abiding and potentially threatening decision that can affect American politics and legality for decades to come because we stand on the greener side of the fence. The death of Justice Scalia can be a revolutionary moment in an ideological shift of the Supreme Court, given his renowned status as an Originalist conservative. It is only a beneficial decision to let Obama appoint a liberal Justice because we recognize ourselves with that ideology (liberalism) -- but the shift is equally impactful for the rest of the population bearing opposing views. Nonetheless, Congress' lack of political etiquette and respect reigns in the way it is dealing with the loss of a Justice. Their inability to, in the least, cope with the Constitutional responsibility/tradition to give the President's nominee a deserved hearing is outrageous and avoidably controversial. Furthermore, I am in no way condoning that the decision should be delayed or postponed until after a new President has been elected. I am merely demonstrating that we face an extremely delicate circumstance which should be treated with the least amount of partisan and the most amount of equity -- leaving aside the Congressional bias and unwillingness to disrupt the status quo, and prioritizing instead a fair judicial and political system that is most reflective of the American people's voice.

Tasheé Fulmore

3/1/2016 06:07:44 pm

I agree with you Nick, we are bias, but as the PEOPLE we are allowed to be bias. Congress does not have that luxury and they should keep that in mind. Yes, all politicians have their own political ideals, but the judicial branch is not a part of government that is meant to be oppressed by politics. Scalia was an originalist and therefore the Senate should honor him and the Constititution by doing their job-which is allowing the President to have a nominee. The country can not be without 9 supreme leaders for a year and a half. We are not making any progress and we will continue to be at a standstill as long as the Republicans neglect their duties at maintaining the responsibilities of our nation. Do I disagree with the Republicans? Yes! But I also believe that the Democrats would pull the same stunt if it was the other way around. Scalia's passing really just uncovers how seperated the parties are and sadly it has reached a point that the government,as a whole, is beginning to fall apart by the growing tensions within.

Tiffany

3/1/2016 03:36:37 pm

There is a line between the Republicans and Democrats, especially when a presidents is ready to nominate a candidate for Justice of the Supreme court. I don't believe congress is misusing their power in order to not led Obama have the right to nominate. There has been a liberal president that had elected a liberal judge in the past. I believe that the "ideological differences between President Obama and Republicans is that they are protecting their own interest by undermining the authority of President Obama" which is what Tania stated above. I don't want to say that just because Obama is a democrat he is going to nominate a liberal judge but the Republicans are afraid of that and they don't want that. But Obama does have his rights since every other presents before him has had a chance to nominate. If Obama brings this issue to the supreme court, their wouldn't be a solution to this problem because he wouldn't have power since whoever is elected would be taking his place. The right for him making a nomination is in the constitution, it's his own decision to nominate. I don't see what exactly is holding him back, he has more authority.

Victoria Collins-Yarde

3/1/2016 08:19:52 pm

I agree that Congress is supposed to protect the people's interest when it comes done to having the people's voice being heard. But the fact that Congress is refusing to Obama's nominee shows how much Congress really cares about the people and the cases that they are trying to win. This refusal is not helping the cases that need to go through the Supreme Court possible because Congress is only worried about what they want rather than what the people are trying to attain. To answer Tania's question, I do not think it is their place to dictate whether Obama should exercise his executive power because they can agree or disagree with him all they want, but at the end of the day if the President doesn't see their decision as the right idea for the Nation he can make a decision based off of what he thinks is the right thing to do.

Cindy Yu

3/2/2016 08:03:27 pm

I agree with Victoria's point. The president has the right to elect a nominee for the supreme court. Because there is 8 justices, 1 more added will disrupt the disrupt the balance according to Congress. In article two of the constitution it states that presidents are required to nominate Supreme Court Justices and with senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. This procedure would allow equal division of power between the president and senate. It is within a president's right and power as an authoritative individual to be able to nominate someone who they see fit as a Supreme Court Justice. The fact that Congress is unwilling to even allow meetings or any arrangement of the sort to me made, really baffles me. If it is within the presidents power, why shouldn't Obama be able to elect someone? Congress should at least allow some sort of arrangement to be made, and should not let their fears of things being thrown off balance determine whether someone should be appointed or not. In addition, Congress should think more about the people of this country and what their decision to ultimately not elect an official will do to many people. Some examples include: abortion clinics, role of race in schools, affordable care accommodations, immigration, and much more. Conflicts that may arise based on these examples will not be solved because there is a complete balance as of right now.

Darwin Pena

3/6/2016 08:04:31 pm

I am in full agreement with Victoria; however, I do believe that Congress does care about the people and the cases they're trying to win. It's very easy for us to ignore the perception of others (politically speaking) and assume that the party we ideologically affiliate ourselves with is the one that is virtuous. What Congress is doing is trying to preserve the opinion of their voters. They're essentially looking out for themselves and their people, thus proving how they do care about "the people. They do care about their people--those who share Republican ideals. I believe that although they have a responsibility to their supporters, they have a greater responsibility to obeying the law of the land. It's not fair to neither President Obama nor the people of America if they continue to not even consider a nomination. There are delicate cases coming up that can have national effects. The outcomes of these cases are determined by these supreme court justices and with a vacancy there's an imbalance. It seems rather 'petty' of Congress for not wanting to take any valid initiative in order to stabilize the situation at hand. Although, it is sensible why Congress is acting in this manner since this judge can determine the ideological dominance of a section of government that is not to be politicized.

Dylan carkhuff

2/29/2016 07:56:30 pm

In my opinion the neglegance of the gop senate is a disgrace. The senate has a job to do and they are refusing to do so. The supreme court is the single most important branch in our entire goverment more so than even the president. By saying that they refuse to even hear a new nominee they are saying that they are okay with going against the constitution which is what they supposedly base a majority of their rules on. By having 8 justices, 4 conservative and 4 liberal, they are basically prohibiting any prior rulings to be over turned. This is unacceptable. It takes on average around 63 days to elect a new supreme court nominee and there is over 300 days left in Obamas term. They claim that the reason they will not hear a nominee is simply becuase they want the people to have a say. This is perhaps the most outrageous claim any entire party has ever made. It seems as if they forgot that the people do actually have a say in the justice. By electing president Obama not once but twice, the people of the US have made it very clear that they trust Obama to elect a reasonable and suitable nominee. The GOP is acting in pure selfishness as they hope to have a republican president take office in 2016, which is highly unlikely givin the front runner Donald Trump.
A speech recently resurfaced from 1992 in which Joe Biden declared that a supreme court nominee should wait as well until the next president was elected. Being a democrat i still find these comments troubling. The people vote a president for 4 years, not 3, not 3 and a half, 4. It is irresponsible to say that the president shouldnt do his constitutional duties of being the president.
Having 8 supreme court justices for an entire year is putting democracy on hold for year. The supreme courts 9 justices are detrimental to democracy and with an even number, hardly anything can be achieved.
The senate as well as the president of the United States have a duty to serve the people of their country. By blocking any and all nominees they are failing to do so and therefore are not representing the people as their job requires!

Rangon Islam

3/1/2016 08:14:53 am

I agree with Dylan; the decision the Supreme Court is taking is putting "democracy on hold." When the Supreme Court is refusing to hear the nominee President Obama has for them, they are not allowing Obama to use his right; President Obama has the right to choose. He even said he would chose someone who is conservative, someone who is similar to Judge Antonin Scalia. Since Judge Antonin Scalia believes in an un-changed Constitution, he would not agree to not even listen to what the President has, because it's his right and it wouldn't hurt to at least consider who he has in mind for that spot in he Supreme Court. But with all the news provided to us and the discussion in class, it leaves me to thinking that this probably goes beyond politics, and maybe something personal.

Rafael Maldonado

3/1/2016 06:31:02 pm

I agree with you Dylan. The president is meant to serve 4 years of his 2 terms. Not letting the president nominate a judge is preventing him from doing his job as the president. Also the using Bidens quote from 24 years ago is very irrational to me. people change their perception and opinion over time so I feel as though it isn't a valid argument. In fact nothing the GOP brings is a valid argument. Let the president do what he is meant to do.

Mersad Redzepagic

3/2/2016 07:57:19 am

I agree with Dylan to some extent. We elected Obama, We entrusted him to protect and better our country. To have a entire house that is conservative. an entire opposite ideology compared to our liberal president seems completely idiotic to me. There is no doubt that things like this will happen when there is barely half liberals in the Senate, In this case there will always be opposition to Obama. Is the senate in the right? Hell no. The senate is supposed to be impartial to current politics, and yet we have them rejecting even looking at candidates for the ninth supreme court justice, who was nominated by the higher power which is the president. The problem is clear, Branches are not doing their jobs. The supreme court is in a dilemma because with even conservatives and even liberals then each case will be going to the appealer, unless a justice decides not to take part in the case. What Joe Biden said, that is now being referred to the "Biden Laws' is completely taken out of context and cannot be used in these ciurcumstances. When Biden spoke, it was about a voluntary leave, not a death, so this cannot be the same situation. The Supreme court plays a very significant role in our country in determining justice on very important cases, with a dysfunctional court, we will have a dysfunctional country. With all of these horrible scenarios, congress still does nothing.

Valerie Kornitchouk

3/14/2016 02:53:21 pm

I completely agree with you, Dylan. It is false for the GOP to claim that the American people aren't gaining a voice, if we are the ones that voted for Obama, to represent us and our demands. Fairly similar to the idea that we have delegates who vote on our behalf for a candidate in the presidency, we have representation in this country.. we're not communist. However, this idea reminds me of checks and balances.. if a certain judge's actions are deemed to be partisan, Congress always has the ability to investigate. But most importantly, these ludicrous claims are put forth only to stir problems between the two parties, and therefore delay a decision that might be unfavorable to some people.

Cierra Bakhsh

3/14/2016 05:05:50 pm

I 100% agree with this. The Supreme Court's job is to rule cases by using the "Law of the Land", which is either highly concrete or highly flexible. If there are 8 justices, cases will reach a stalemate, insinuating no progress. Supreme Court decisions must be made quickly, as they are important, and if people are arguing that Obama should not be able to place a justice in power, they are not allowing him to exercise his executive power. President Obama is definitely allowed to pick a justice, and if he does choose one, that justice will 99.9% be Democrat, which the Republicans want to avoid. In my opinion, Obama should appoint a new justice ASAP, as he only has a few months left in office and should do as much as he can to leave behind some sort of an "Obama-legacy".

Jenny F.

2/29/2016 08:16:19 pm

When our constitution was written by the founding fathers it was clearly stated in Article II, Section II Clause II that the president under the Appointment Clause can nominate new officials for a position in the government; it is the president's constitutional right to nominate a new candidate for the supreme court position. The death of former supreme court justice Antonin Scalia occurred at the time of a presidential nominee election. This presidential election is seeing some very new and colorful points of view, some of which go against the constitution. Now with Scalia's death there is a spot open in the highest rank of our government, who will be the one to fill this spot? Nine members are required, one serves as a tie breaker and upholds the ideas of democracy. Majority rules. Congress has released statements saying that if and when Obama nominates someone he/she will not even be acknowledge. Not accepting that Obama is acting on his right as a president is childish. Congress prefers to wait for the next president to make a choice; why wait when we have a president who can make a choice now? Waiting for the new elected president to give their two cents just prolongs the frustration and puts all supreme court cases at a standstill. It is unknown as to the actual reasoning for congress's blatant disregard for Obama's choice, whether it be ideological or personal it is unconstitutional. For people who are supposed to uphold the constitution congress isn't doing the best job.

Andrew Zabala

3/1/2016 05:46:02 am

I agree that congress is not doing what they are supposed to be doing. The president has to nominate someone to fill that spot on the supreme court and the congress has to at least consider that person. congress states that no matter who Obama chooses that they will not have a hearing or a vote. If they do not do this than it will be the first time since 1875 that a nominee has not had a vote or a hearing. They could just have the hearing and say no but they refuse that as well. Congress wants to wait until the new president is elected but in doing so supreme court cases can't get the best ruling that they can. They are stopping something that is crucial to this country. They say it is because the people should have a say in this decision therefore by waiting until the new president is elected by the people they would have a say. This does not make that much sense because the president is always elected by the people and Obama has been elected twice which shows how much the people trust Obama's decisions. This also shows that the reason congress is doing this is because it is Obama who would be nominating someone and if it was someone else then there would not be such a problem. Doing your job is much more important than not liking someone. congress is not being mature at all. Congress simply needs to put aside how they feel about Obama and do their job which is what is best for the country instead of creating a problem that does not need to exist.

Isatou Bah

2/29/2016 09:04:26 pm

In my opinion, the GOP’s reason for refusing the president the right to propose a nominee has very little to do with the interest of the people. Rather, I think it has more to do with pure politics than anything else. In class, Mrs. Waller suggested that perhaps the reason why they do not want Obama to even nominate someone is because it will make the Republican Party “look bad” to it’s supporters. Others also made similar suggestion. When it’s all said and done, all of the reasons were political to some extent. This notion, to me, is quite disturbing because as the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, stated “[the GOP] is politicizing a branch of government that’s supposed to be insulated from politics.” As we all learned in class today, the supreme court is a depoliticized component of our government. However, the debacle our government is currently engaged in bares reflection of a highly politicized image of the supreme court position--at least in the eyes of the GOP. In other words, as a “regular citizen” of this country, I find it unsettling that the leaders of our country can object to a constitutional establishment without any consequential liability.As for responsibility, the president needs to nominate someone and exercise the power that is given to him by the constitution. The senate must find a way to cope with the fact that they are constitutionally wrong and hold those hearings.

Sherien Hassan

3/1/2016 04:09:53 pm

I agree with what Isatou is saying about the responsibility the President and Congress have to the American people in holding hearings and approving new members of the Supreme Court. The actions taken was more to help a select group of people in the political party rather than helping the American people.These decisions are made in order to help the people but the fact that the people are not taken into consideration while the decision is made does not seem like something that should happen. We have presidential elections for a reason, we put trust that the person we choose as president can make the right decisions. But instead his right to do so was taken away and that was wrong.

Sierrah Tann

3/2/2016 07:24:45 am

I strongly agree with Isatou's statement about the presidents right to propose a nominee having little interest to do with the American people and it being mainly based off of politics. The responsibility of the President & Congress is to approve of a new member in the Supreme Court justices but these approvals are based heavily on the political parties and their reputations. This will be Presidents Obama third approval for a picking a candidate and this conflicts with the Congress' interest because they feel he will have another liberal as a candidate and this weakens the republican parties political outlook. The American people put trust in whomever we elect as president therefore they should be entirely in charge of determining who will be the candidate.

Omoyele Okunola

3/16/2016 04:11:40 pm

I completely agree with what you had to say. The Senate is not concerned with the desires of the American people; they only seem to care about their own best interests and are blatantly refusing to do their job. It is Obama's right and duty as President of the United States to nominate someone to the Supreme Court when a seat is vacant, and it is the GOP's job to at least consider President Obama's nominee. The GOP's refusal of a Supreme Court nominee is a demonstration of their fear of a democratic majority Congress when the next President is elected. The Supreme Court is meant to be free from political influence but if President Obama nominates another Liberal, especially during this controversial time in politics and potential splitting of the Republican Party, Republicans in the Senate are afraid that they will lose their power. Today, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said that he would not meet with Garland and then in a bold move, Mr. McConnell said that the people should vote for the next Supreme Court justice. Although Mr. McConnell's 'suggestion' may seem ridiculous when first heard, it could potentially change the structure of our government.

Benjamin Herlihy

3/1/2016 04:37:45 pm

Congress and the President have several responsibilities to the American people when picking a new Justice. First all members should appoint a new Justice in a timely matter. This is because the supreme court was designed to operate with 9 justices so with only 8 many court decisions are tied. These cases will likely be tied until a new Justice is appointed. Another responsibly is to appoint a justice whos loyalty lies with "right thing to do" rather than a personal beliefs, political parties or religious views. Lastly Congress should not base their decisions just so they can win a reelection campaign.

Belle Clemente

3/1/2016 05:18:54 pm

I agree with you, Ben. With only eight Justices, unless one of them chooses to recuse themselves, as Justice Kagan has in the pending Fisher vs. University of Texas, there is the possibility of a 4-to-4 split. It is unreasonable, in this way, to leave an even number of Justices. Not only does a tie result in a thoroughly unresolved case, it does not halt the progress of an outcome. As listed out in the second article, this even split settles these pending cases with results that may or may not be the most logical, moral, or generally best outcome. Additionally, cases settled by the Supreme Court, because they must first pass through lower courts, cannot be changed, unless completely retried in a new case. These Supreme Court outcomes thus have heavy impacts.
In electing a new Justice, there is also the blur between achieving justice and the need to separate political ideals which are essentially opinions. There is a danger to both of the major parties in electing a new Justice, and while Justices themselves do not have to be reelected, it is important to remember that those politicians within each party do. Reacting to current national problems by either pushing for or against the replacement of a Justice by Obama will not help to pick a "better" Justice, however, there needs to be a balance of when it is logical to replace the Scalia exclusive of which policies are deemed important to pass through the Supreme Court (determined of course by each respective political party).

Ms Waller

3/1/2016 04:54:17 pm

Hi Hi,

Just to add a little more information here, the Times published this article 6 hours ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/us/politics/obama-to-make-case-to-gop-senators-to-fill-supreme-court-seat.html

It doesn't look like Obama hasn't been able to make progress, but it's interesting to note the last sentence of the article. We're talking about a judicial issue - but somehow the rhetoric of the election is finding it's way in here. It's everywhere!!

Feel free to add other articles that you think might be relevant to this conversation.

Raimi Burg

3/1/2016 06:50:45 pm

In the case of the articles, specifically for the congress, which is currently Republican in majority, the congress and the president have a responsibility to select (the president) and approve (the congress) 9 supreme court justices. The judiciary branch is supposed to be free of any political alignment (although they clearly are), so that they can make decisions on important cases which don't see any resolution in the lower courts. These large cases often deal with issues that Republicans and Democrats disagree on strongly, such as abortion, immigration, and voting rights. Have 9 supreme court justices insures that there is always a decision made, and that there are never any deadlocks or stalemates. With the death of chief justice Scalia, the fear of a deadlock in the supreme court has risen immensely. Republicans may not want to have whoever Obama picks for a new SCJ, but it is their constitutional duty to at least meet with and evaluate a nominee. Specifically in article 1, Republicans have even refused to do their basic duty, saying that regardless of whether or not they meet with Obama's pick, the end result would be the same, so "whats the point. The point is, is that with 8 chief justices and the fear of a deadlock, hugely important cases are not getting resolved. It is irresponsible and simply a waste of time to not choose a nominee simply because of ideological reasons in a government branch that is supposed to be free of any political transparency. This doesn't look particularly good for the GOP either, this move seems childish. More often that not, this his been the Republican way, this "I will get what I want or nobody gets anything" mindset does not belong in a a government that is supposed to serve a nation of 300 million plus people. It's a shame, really.

Tasmia

3/1/2016 06:58:37 pm

I agree with Tasheé. The best solution for this situation is the Senate respecting the Constitution by allowing Obama, the President, to have a nominee. Due to Scalia's death, it has now made it difficult for laws to be passed accurately and in a timely manner. Just because Obama's term as President is coming to a close does not mean he should not have the authority to have a nominee. Yes, he has appointed a Supreme Court judge twice, which is the maximum a President can have, but waiting for a new President to be elected is just putting the country in a time of no progression. There needs to be a nominee in order for the Supreme Court justice to finally be able to give the best ruling they can. It is important to act on these problems as soon as possible because if America doesn't, we, the people, are just stuck with no way out.

Diya Patel

3/1/2016 07:28:51 pm

I believe that the President and Congress represent the people and are there to protect the rights of its citizens. It is not only the Presidents and Congress’s right but also their duties to do what is best for the majority of the people they represent. But when you have both branches,the executive branch and the legislative branch battling each other you begin to see the negatives of the checks and balance system. Neither side can go forward without each-others approval. This leaves court cases hanging and the needs and changes are less likely going to be met when we have a hole in our Judiciary. In my opinion as President, Obama should be allowed to appoint a new judge and Congress needs to accept that because they work for the preservation of the government and needs of the people so it would as if Congress is not performing its duty by using absurd and unintelligent excuses to prevent the appointment of another judge. I understand that Democracy is all about comprising and debates but even that has its limits. But it's honestly absurd how Congress uses Vice President Joe Biden’s quote back when he was a senator against him today; because they have no better excuse to use.

Kylana Laspina

3/1/2016 09:09:04 pm

It is the president's responsibility and the Congress to assist in appointing a new Supreme Justice to ensure that the nation's rights are protected. In addition Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia's death, created a further schism between both political parties. The greater concern is the threat imposed on both parties for representation within the panel of Justices, in order to carry out conservative or liberal values in court decisions. Not appointing a Justice leads court cases sent to the Supreme court unresolved because there needs to be a deciding factor to set a precedent for similar cases. Therefore, it is essential that President Obama appoint a new Justice despite any criticisms.

Tevin Green

3/2/2016 08:38:24 am

I am going to disagree to this. Although it is Obama's responsibility he still has no right. This is because that his decision will affect the many years to come, and that he'll be out of power. It will have nothing to do with him and if anything goes wrong, he wont feel the consequences of his actions.

Awais Rahman

3/1/2016 09:31:52 pm

The death Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia resulted in the end of an era. The fact of the matter is that there is now a huge vacancy that needs to be filled. However Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, would disagree saying "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Supporting him would be Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz saying "we're not going to give up the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee." To justify this, the Senate is using the [unofficial] 'Thurmond Rule' which states that a president should not elect a supreme court Justice during the last few months of their presidency. This generally means 6 months or less. To refute this silly down right ludicrous request, assuming that this rule does apply it wouldn't come into effect until July. Second the Republican Party, which is mostly pushing forth this front, straight-up rebuked this rule from ever coming into play back when democrats were pushing for this during the George W. Bush years. Ironically it was Senator Mitch McConnell himself rebuking the validity of this rule being pretty categorical about it. Marco Rubio himself states "you talk about someone (Antonin Scalia) who defended consistently the original meaning of the constitution. Who understood that the Constitution was not there to be interpreted during the fads of the moment." Undoubtedly Justice Scalia loved the letter of the law, and would agree with this. Article two, Section two of the constitution states that "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and Consent of the senate shall appoint.. Justices of the supreme Court..." This means that the CURRENT President who is BARACK OBAMA has full authority to elect a judge regardless of some childlike belief to delay this matter. Recently however the Republicans have refined their reasons in an attempt to seem intelligent and some what reasonable. Their reasons follow; 80 years of not confirming Supreme Court Justices in the last year, 80 years since someone was nominated in the presidents last year, and 80 years of the senate not confirmed any nominee, nominated in an election year. As unusual as this 80 year time frame is, there are 5 Justices that have served whom refute any of these illogical reasons to contain the slightest bit of truth. Of course the real concern here is the fact that there needs to be a 9th Justice to break the tie in many important cases in the country. Many of which involve the rights of the people. Whether your a conservative or liberal the rights of the people being protected by the government is really the life force of the Constitution, which in this case protects Obama's rights to elect a judge or the requirement of the supreme court to address these dire concerns with full force and protect the peoples rights. As such this forms a symbiotic relationship of the constitution protecting the peoples rights, but also the people having to accept the constitution for what it stands for.

Lin Li

3/2/2016 07:51:46 am

I agree with Awais. President Obama have the rights to nominate another Supreme Court Justice. He still has over 7 months left in the office, therefore the "Thurmond Rule" should not affect him. It is President Obama's job to nominate Supreme Court Justice in order to protect every citizens' rights. There are still many Supreme Court cases that didn't solve, but there can be a tie in every cases with only 8 Justices. This means that citizens can't receive their democracy because the GOP doesn't want President Obama to nominate another Justice to protect citizens' rights.

Christopher Neal

3/2/2016 04:33:52 am

With the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the congress is thrown into an uproar over the decision whether to fill the vacant spot up or not. Honestly when reading the first article it was very indicative that the Republicans reason for wanting vacancy stemmed back further than just the recent death of Justice Scalia. During the eight year Presidency of Obama Republicans have constantly felt that their conservatism was being attacked and nor preserved. The have shown time after time that they are not willing to make amends with the democratic party in terms of decision making it's either one or the other and no compromise. What this means is if the seat of Justice Scalia is left vacant during such a relevant time in Supreme court decision making the court potentially be held in gridlock. Also, given that he has the right to nominate candidates for the seat, Obama, will most likely elect a candidate who shares democratic principles which will, throw off the republicans off balance. So in the republicans eyes it is wise to stall the election of a new Supreme Court Justice during a time of such in important decision making because it could in the future make the turnout go in favor of the republicans.

Valerie Ngo

3/17/2016 03:56:35 pm

I agree with you Chris. It's clear that congress is literally just stalling so that when Obama leaves office, they have the opportunity to bring in a conservative judge. But reading the articles and having our class discussion made me realize how stubborn and unfair congress really is. It's Obama's constitutional right to elect a candidate, despite the fact that he is leaving office soon. If the Republicans in congress are preventing Obama's constitutional right and Republicans are known to be conservative, wouldn't they stick to what the constitution says? I'm pretty sure conservatives are also known for sticking to the constitution more so than liberals. This just makes it seem like the Republicans only follow the supreme law of the land whenever it benefits them. But the law doesn't work like that. You don't get to pick and choose when you want to follow the law. Also, Scalia is an originalist. Therefore, congress should honor a dead man by following through with his beliefs. This reaffirms the idea that congress will only take action or not take action when it benefits them, which is super selfish and, not to mention, ironic. They're meant to represent/serve the people, not themselves. Them not making a compromise and hearing out Obama is hurting the people because a bunch of the cases left unanswered are impacting us.

Ivy Nunez

3/2/2016 04:42:39 am

The scrimmage between the President and Congress, particularly the Senate, is unfair due to a number of reason. It shouldn't be up for discussion by the Senate whether the President can appoint a new justice or not because it is simply his job and he is entitled to that duty. So the fact being that the Senate wants to deny him this responsibility is unfair and tampers with the order of our country. Both Congress and the President have the upmost biggest responsibilities in appointing justices that are fit for their position because they rule on very crucial issues that can essentially create big change and make history. Especially now, there is a lot at stake with issues such as abortion, contraception, immigration, etc. It would be foolish for these pending issues to be put on hold for a year and a half until a new president is elected. There is also a lot of imbalance going on within the power that the legislative branch is taking to overpower the president and almost dictate what he can and can't do. The Senate claims that by waiting until the next President is elected they are protecting the interest of citizens, however it's kind of hard to believe that based on the ways in which they are handling such a delicate situation. By bringing up Joe Biden's speech from two years ago and not even slightly considering President Obama's pick is very irrational and immature on the Senate's part. The other side of the argument is that a lot of Democrats like me are enraged because we see this obstruction of justice ruining our politics, especially if the future is Republican and he then would be able to appoint a justice who we might not necessarily agree with. I'd say if the tables were turned whether I'm in favor of it or not, I would let whatever President choose a justice in a time like this even if he's almost at the end of his term because it is simply his right.

Bao Nguyen

3/13/2016 04:42:22 pm

I find your comment to be analytical. "The Senate claims that by waiting until the next President is elected they are protecting the interest of citizens, however it's kind of hard to believe that based on the ways in which they are handling such a delicate situation." I agree because at this point in time, when it is a very possible idea that Donald Trump can become America's next president, I find it irrational that the Supreme Court is not trying to solve this problem at a faster rate. From their point of view, the republican side of the Supreme Court would want to wait because Obama's likely democratic pick would override the number of republicans, meaning they won't get their way in the future. But at this moment, the Republican party is extremely divisive due to the Donald Trump situation. Trump is winning plenty of states at this point and in order to protect the best interests of America, the Supreme Court should just allow even a hearing for Obama's representative. They should rather want more Obama's representatives than having just one representative from Donald Trump. Their irrationality comes during a crucial time for American: election year. It does not make them look good at this time, delaying the choosing of a new Supreme Court justice. It just provides a negative outlook on the republican justices. I agree with you Ivy, these court cases should not be delayed any further. These court cases will probably take a negative turn if Donald Trump becomes president with his representative in the Supreme Court.

Christina Obuobi

3/15/2016 06:57:04 am

I understand where you are coming from; the Supreme Court is the final judge of all cases, therefore, their decisions cannot be held off. It is safe to say that presidential candidate Donald Trump is winning the hearts of many, and it is most likely that he will have to pick the justice if he becomes president. There will be an unbalance of Democartic and Republican justices and that will cause more problems than there already is.

Jerry Balbuena

3/18/2016 07:53:34 am

I agree with Christina in that there will be a lack of stability among the justices. With this being said it is not ideal to wait until after the presidential election because by the looks of it Donald Trump has captivated many states and if elected he will inevitably pick the justice. This means that Trump will pick a justice that represents his ideologies.

Celestine C Richardson

3/2/2016 05:10:04 am

The responsibility does the president and supreme court have on the America people is the decision to pick up a new member for the supreme court. Really its is the president job to do that but he needs a approval by congress to have the new member be one of the supreme court Justice. Right now one of the supreme court justices passed away he was so conservative and republican. Now the court has a even numbers of ideal being liberal vs conservative. The importance for the people is choosing this new supreme court can affect the outcome of which laws going to get passed. Having this stand still having problems that have to wait now is the problem for the american people. These problem made by the people to get some of the justices to passed.

Mayra Molina

3/2/2016 06:11:31 am

I agree with Ivy. Although I do understand why the senate is not okay with allowing the president to appoint another justice because he has already appointed two, and no other president has exceeded that amount ever. However, waiting a whole year and a half is the not right way to go. There are many cases that the justices will have to vote on and if there is one justice missing it could completely change the final results.

Jenny Huang

3/2/2016 07:28:25 am

I agree with Mayra because it is not okay for so many important cases to be on the waiting list since there is an imbalance in the number of judges. However, I can understand why the senate is iffy about the same democratic president appointing another judge; this can create an imbalance between the number of liberal judges and conservative judges, which can, as a result, affect the decisions made.

Emani McDowell

3/2/2016 11:26:53 am

In my opinion the President and Congress have a large responsibility to the people in holding hearings, as well as approving a new member of the supreme court. Since it is the job of the President to choose the members of the Supreme Court there should be no debate on whether Congress is going to hear him out or not. That is simply taking away power from the President and giving it to Congress. Even though there is and should be a limit to how many members of the Supreme Court the President is allowed to choose, you have to remember that since the members of the Supreme court serve for life, eventually you're going to need new members. So as a result of this even if the President has chosen his "maximum" amount, there should be an exception to this rule so that the Supreme courts major decisions aren't affected because they don't have the sufficient amount of people serving on the bench. This responsibility is huge to the American people since, we as citizens don't choose who serves debates on issues that will effect us. Congress shouldn't be able to undermine the President by taking away something that it is his job to do.

Tasnim Shikder

3/2/2016 01:10:44 pm

I agree with Lin. Even though every president from the previous years only got to nominate 2 Supreme Court justices, Obama is in a rare position where Scalia died and he's the president who is rightfully allowed to nominate a new person. In my opinion, this wouldn't be a big deal if Obama wasn't dark skinned. In fact, this conversation would most likely not take place because according to the law, it's the presidents right to nominate the Supreme Court justice. Also, if he doesn't nominate, who will? The people? I don't think this is a wise idea because it'll throw everything off. It is said for the president to nominate, not the people. Having the people nominate will create a bigger problem because if this happens in the future and our next president is white, the people will rightfully have to nominate then too and I doubt that the government would want that. This wouldn't be a conversation if Obama was white.

Erik Lazo

3/3/2016 10:09:58 pm

Amongst several issues being raised about the Supreme Court justice candidacy there is the suggestion that the GOP wants to discredit Mr. Obama's presidency by denying him the constitutional right to nominate a judicial candidate. Some claims even go as far as suggesting that the Congressional Majority wants to discredit the presidency of an African-American. However ludicrous or credible these claims might be, I believe they underlie the more important reason for why the Congressional Majority wishes to prevent a supreme court justice nominee; at the end of the day it's all politics. The Majority knows that a justice nominee by a Democratic-Liberal President will most likely result in the justice having a liberal/left leaning political ideology. This would go against the Majority's mission, which is to make the bench predominantly conservative. As a result, the Majority strategically claims that it would be more appropriate for a justice to be appointed after the new president is sworn in, with the hopes that the new president will be part of the GOP. As one might realize, it is evident that the Congressional Majority is putting ahead it's own agenda instead of pursuing one that would be of interest to the American people, even though they might say that by delaying a nominee they are leaving it up to the people. While Congress does have a responsibility to the people it has an even greater responsibility to the Constitution.

Alexandria J.

3/8/2016 01:56:41 pm

I believe that we have to look at this entire situation from two different point of view. One might argue, President Obama has already bought two other Supreme Court judges into the system and by bringing in another, even if the next few presidents of the United States are Republican, the Supreme Court will rule mostly in favor of Democrats. This can be seen as unfair for the Republicans. However, a Democrat supporter might argue that the presidents' terms are four years long; therefore there should be no problem with bringing a new Supreme Court judge, regardless of which way the new judge would lean, Liberal or Conservative.

Sera Knobler

3/8/2016 05:43:43 pm

I understand why the Senate is unsure about letting Obama nominate another judge because it could sway any decision in any court case, to a more liberal or more conservative view. On the other hand, it is the president's right to nominate a judge if needed so I think it is unfair to the people, who need the Supreme Court to settle cases, to have one less person arguing for a side.

Almas Redzematovic

3/14/2016 12:02:14 pm

I agree with you Sera. However, I do not believe that it is unfair to the people. The reason I say this is because only the people that are part of the government should have any say about scouting an individual into Congress to be the judge into the Supreme Court. There are many uneducated people on the topic in the outside world that have the tendency to share their own opinion the politics when it shouldn't be recognized because they have no experience in the political field. Leave it up to the President to pick and choose whomever he wants to involve in the Supreme Court.

Jessica gamble

3/9/2016 05:07:26 pm

In my opinion, when it comes to approving a new member for congress, it is their responsibility completely. The public can not appoint these members or do anything toward these matters. I believe that when people put a certain power into the hands of a select few, that select few should do what needs to be done. The fact that there are debates occurring because of the death of a member, is absurd! The normal routine that occurs if a member dies or retires, unfolds in a way that life continues on. Currently, we have 8 members, leaving an even number of members when voting. This unbalance causes an unbalance in various of things. Why should the public suffer of this unbalance for the next couple of months because of the disagreement amoung leaders that we elected to prevent this? No one can be blamed for this mishap other than the people who are causing it. It is completely their responsibility and something needs to be done immediately.

Katelan N

3/17/2016 07:00:36 pm

I understand and agree with you completely but can you blame the Republicans for their choice to essentially disregard President Obamas right to choose a Supreme Court nominee. In my opinion, its a super strategic choice to hold off on his decision for the nominee. The Supreme Court Justices are currently evenly split between the two parties: 4 democrat and 4 republicans. They believed that if President Obama were to select a nominee, that nominee would reflect the views of the Presidents party, therefor outweighing the number of Democrats to Republicans 5 to 4.

The ironic thing is that on March 16th, President Obama announced his Justice nominee, Merrick Garland, who happens to be politically moderate.Still, congress still refuses to hold a hearing on the nomination.

Nabil Khan

3/14/2016 05:09:49 pm

The death of Justice Scalia is a tragic loss to the Supreme Court; however I feel that his voice in the decisions would result in court decisions that many of us wouldn't favor. The case Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo is the fight for workers at a pork processing plant who didn't get paid for their overtime. Without Scalia being there, the workers would win. Unfair pay and wage is a problem all over the country and Scalia, known to have republican ideologies, wouldn't favor the workers. Having an empty seat right now in the Supreme court isn't the worst thing that could happen. I'm most definitely for Obama being allowed to select a new Justice; however at this chaotic time, waiting on it wouldn't be the worst idea either. The republicans aren't giving Obama the right to bring in another Justice because of their selfish desires, but the negatives don't over weigh the positives of waiting it out.

Victoria Herrera

3/14/2016 06:49:46 pm

I believe that the fact that the there is a Justice missing is a huge issue that ultimately has an impact on American citizens. With president Obama not being able to nominate a new Justice because of Congress, there is obviously tension between both political parties which makes it very easy for there to be political persuasion. I agree with Darwin when he stated that Congress is only really taking into account their republican ideology and how it directly relates to the people who affiliate themselves with it, especially now with elections going on. This in turn displays how much Congress is abusing their power and the failure of the checks and balance system in this particular case.

Jigme Dorjee

3/29/2016 04:55:41 pm

I feel that the President and Congress has a responsibility to the American people to hold a hearing and approve a new member of the Supreme Court. I feel this because we the majority of the people selected the political figures to represent us in the government no matter what the republican party has to say. It's only fair because if the president was republican he/she would've chosen a "conservative" supreme court justice.