Register’s Opinion Page Calls for Next President to Fill Scalia’s Spot

Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia

Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia

This editorial ran on Wednesday, but we can’t let the editorial writers at the OC Register get away with an editorial that runs so counter to their libertarian and pro-Constitutional positions.  The editorial desk at the Register thinks the next president should nominate a replacement for Antonin Scalia who passed away last weekend at a Texas resort.  As the Register is embracing the positions of Republican presidential candidates and Senate Republicans, they lose credence on their defenses of Constitution principles.

OC Register Headquarters

From the editorial:

A delay means the court likely will hand down 4-4 deadlocked rulings on many important cases, such as Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, involving Orange County teacher Rebecca Friedrichs. If there’s a tie in that case, the previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would stand, meaning public employee unions still would be able to withhold dues for collective bargaining even if an employee objects.

Other important pending cases involve abortion, affirmative action, gun control, voting rights and religious liberty.

Despite those likely complications, we believe the Senate should hold off on confirming anyone nominated by President Obama. This is why we have elections. Let “We, the people” first decide the person we want to choose the replacement justice.

The American people do have a voice in who picks Scalia’s replacement and they spoke with this voice in November 2012 when Barack Obama was re-elected by a large margin.  The President will nominate someone this year; should Republicans delay the confirmation more than 300 days remaining in the president’s term, it will solidify the GOP as the party of extreme partisanship and obstruction.”

The only reason to delay nominating someone to the Court is the hope a Republican wins the presidential election in November.  One has to wonder, if this were 2008, would the Register encourage George W. Bush to nominate a conservative replacement for Scalia immediately.

  6 comments for “Register’s Opinion Page Calls for Next President to Fill Scalia’s Spot

  1. RHackett
    February 19, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    There is no legitimate reason to delay seating a replacement for Scalia.

    The GOP has had a majority for so long they now believe they are entitled to that status quo.

    A mindset (entitlement) they claim to detest in others.

  2. junior
    February 19, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    I. What the Constitution Says.

    The Constitution is indeed clear on this issue, but not in the way the president suggests. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.” Notice that the Senate is not required to give its “advice and consent.” Rather, its consent is a prerequisite to enabling the president’s nominee to take up his or her office.
    Washington Post –

  3. February 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    It’s a really weak and lazy piece too. They don’t even attempt to make their case. Except for some nonsensical and irrelevant cliche about “we the people” in the last sentence.

    • RHackett
      February 22, 2016 at 7:51 pm

      Especially since “We the people” already decided twice.

  4. junior
    February 23, 2016 at 6:39 am

    Since Bork would have upset the “balance” that the Dems demanded – a conservative should be nominated to replace Scalia – for that same “balance.” The American people should have a say so in this.

    • RHackett
      February 23, 2016 at 8:38 am

      Not a valid comparison.

      Bork was given a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a full vote by the Senate.

      McConnell has stated he won’t allow either one.

      The Dems would not confirm Bork. And neither did six GOP senators. After Bork’s nomination was rejected by the Judiciary Committee even the Reagan Administration’s support became tepid at best.

      Why should the “balance” remain the same? Are conservatives entitled to a majority on the SCOTUS? Where is that written in the Constitution? I missed it.

Comments are closed.