Add new comment

That was never the founders' intent. In fact, their intent was the opposite. See this piece from historian Gary Wills: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/15/next-supreme-court-justice-not-u...

In any event, the people have decided they want Obama to be president. Twice - by overwhelming electoral college majorities. I don't recall seeing anywhere when Obama ran that he was being elected to three-year terms. (He's got eleven months left, not nine.) You know, the Senate is perfectly capable of going about its business, holding hearings and voting no on an Obama nominee. Why go this route of deciding to not even consider a nominee instead? It's because McConnell wants to normalize his position so that it doesn't seem unreasonable, which it is by almost any definition. You'll recall that it was the same McConnell who before Obama even took office said it was his goal to make Obama's presidency unsuccessful.

I've no idea how this plays out in the election. I'd guess that being viewed as pure obstructionists would hurt Republican candidates in these blue-leaning states where they are definding Senate seats - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Illinois. But I'm not sure. Most presidential elections have been won in the middle - that is, candidates win by attracting votes from moderates and independents to add to their core cupporters. Everybody seems to think this election will be different, that it will be a base election with each side pumping out their own voters at high rates and forfeiting the middle.

If that's true, woe be us. We won't have a functioning Congress for twenty years.

For what it's worth, I loved Scalia even though I disagreed with him about 98 percent of the time. He elevated the standards of the court - except when he didn't, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc. - and he was a fabulous writer and wit of the sort we nowadays ahve so few of in public life. 

Here's a nice Scalia anecdote: 

He was on a PBS program that took the form of a round-table discussion on the ethics of bio-enhancement. The other guests included prominent ethicists, writers, scientists. The discussion took place in Washington, D.C.., and began early on the morning after a rather too celebratory dinner party welcoming the participants to town. At one point in the discussion, the neuroscientist Tim Tully remarked that he didn’t really care about the invention of cognitive enhancement drugs. He looked forward to the day, he said, when you could take a pill to cure the red wine hangovers afflicting several of the panelists. Scalia said: “Will it work for Scotch?”