Replacing Scalia
Karma rising
Regarding “Epic fight begins over next justice” (Page A1, Monday), the level of blatant hypocrisy on display regarding the issue of the Supreme Court vacancy has reached new heights (or depths). Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is currently outraged that Republicans in the Senate have proposed leaving the Supreme Court seat vacant until the new president is elected. His outrage is very selective.
In July 2007, when then-President George W. Bush still had 18 months remaining in his term of office, Schumer gave a speech to the American Constitution Society in which he stated “we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court...”. Sauce for the goose, Senator.
Steven K. Howell, Houston
Yea or nay
Regarding “Scalia’s death sets up battle” (Page A1, Sunday), the notion that there should be a delay in filling the vacancy simply because it’s an election year is absurd. The Constitution clearly enunciates the responsibility of the president to nominate a qualified person to become a member of the court, and it’s the duty of the Senate to advise as well as determine the fitness of the nominee and render a vote on confirmation.
The Constitution does not change depending on the timing of an upcoming election. If it were a much shorter time frame it might make some sense, but it’s more than 11 months before the next president takes office. This preemptive rejection of the Constitution smacks of raw partisanship, and the GOP and Sen. Ted Cruz should know better.
David L. Gordon, Pasadena
Wait, wait
The best decision would be for the Senate to stall the appointments made by President Obama, due to the fact that he will most likely try to appoint a Democrat.
Scalia was a Republican, and the vacancy should be filled with a Republican to keep the balance of parties in the Supreme Court.
Bryce Piper, Houston
Unanimous vote
The Senate should hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. However, this nominee should not be admitted unless the vote is unanimous because President Obama is about to leave the presidency. A unanimous vote would show that everyone in the Senate supports the nominee and will try to work well with him or her. Without full support, Obama’s nominee will not fulfill the satisfaction of the Supreme Court and may lead to unnecessary conflict.
Jeffrey Price, Bellaire
Obstructionism
The last time I checked a president in this country was elected for four years, not three years, one month. The Republicans think the people should decide who should nominate the next Supreme Court justice? They did, in 2012.
For the Senate to refuse a hearing or vote on whomever President Obama’s nominee turns out to be is more partisan Republican obstructionism, nothing more and nothing less.
David Kelly, Spring
True to form
In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell stated that the main goal of the Republican Party was to make President Obama a one-term president. Now he says the Republicancontrolled Senate will not hold hearings on any candidate President Obama nominates for the Supreme Court. This is not governing, it is political warfare, naked and brazen. With control of the Senate, the Republicans could have gone through the motions of holding hearings and taking votes on candidates without confirming anyone.
The fact that McConnell has come out so openly against President Obama nominating anyone indicates a deep and personal animus against the president.
Gonzalo Martinez, La Porte