An American flag flies at half-staff in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on last Sunday following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a day earlier. (Drew Angerer, Getty Images)
Re: Death of Antonin Scalia raises stakes for 2016 election, Feb. 15 editorial.
Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia will not be an easy task. The balance between constitutionalist and liberal justices is at stake and it will be a battle between the two parties. The president has the constitutional right of appointment and he will nominate a liberal-oriented judge, and the Republican led Senate in its constitutional role of advise and consent will fight the nomination.
The president and the Democrats had better remember 1987, when the shoe was on the other foot in a similar situation. When President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, the Democrats ravaged him in the hearings — not on his qualifications, but on political innuendoes.
But it doesn t have be this way if both the president and the Senate would adhere to the constitutional premise that judges should not be activists, either on the right or left, and try to legislate from the bench. As Justice Scalia always advocated, their purpose is to interpret the laws, not make laws.
You can bet that rationale will not be used in the process to replace Scalia. The battle lines have been drawn.
Peter Bruno, Arvada
This letter was published in the Feb. 21 edition.Senate Republicans have already announced that they will refuse to even consider any nomination from President Obama to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. It appears that they need to be reminded that the Constitution assigns them with the duty to advise and consent, not delay and obstruct, and that nominations are to be made by the president, not a future president. Filling judicial vacancies is part of their job.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Indeed, and they do, because the appointment will be made by a president who was elected by the American people, not once, but twice. That s all the input the American people get under present laws.
If I were to refuse to do my job because my boss would retire in 11 months, I d find myself looking for another job. Republican senators would do well to recognize that the same may well apply for them.
Topher Eliot, Denver
To obstruct or not to obstruct, that is the question now facing Republicans in the United States Senate in light of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia s untimely demise. The appeal to many conservatives of the tactic of stonewalling President Obama s forthcoming nomination to replace Scalia is the prospect of a conservative U.S. Supreme Court, Senate and presidency, assuming a Republican wins the White House and has the opportunity to nominate his replacement. However, there are many independent-minded voters who don t want either major political party to dominate all three branches of government. If faced with the prospect of a conservative sweep, some voters may be inclined to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate to maintain political balance.
Ironically, duly performing their constitutional duty to consider and approve President Obama s nominee to the Supreme Court in a timely manner could improve Republican chances of a victory in the contest for president.
Peter Wessel, Denver
This letter was published in the Feb. 21 edition.Before partisan rancor and posturing render reasoned discussion impossible, let s establish the facts.
First, the Constitution provides no role for public opinion in this. The power of appointment is vested in the sitting president, with the advice and consent of the Senate — the people s elected representatives since ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
Second, in the century since, eight justices have been named by presidents in the fourth year of their terms, including a recess appointment by Dwight D. Eisenhower with no review. Average time for approval was five weeks: three under Republican presidents and eight with Democrats. The longest delay was four months for Louis Brandeis in Woodrow Wilson s second term.
That Republican leaders (and candidates) now huffily insist on 12 months without a full court displays their utter disregard for history, the Constitution and a functional American government — and betrays their rising obsession with narrow ideology and personal power.
David M. Metcalf, Littleton
This letter was published in the Feb. 21 edition.It is interesting to read of the Republican presidential candidates protestations that President Obama should defer the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice to the next president, so the 2016 election can be a referendum on that choice. Even though as a conservative I am not expecting to be happy with Obama s choice, the referendum that matters is his second presidential election. If Obama chooses someone who will change the balance of the court, then it will be up to conservative senators to oppose him. One-third of the senators will then face a referendum in November as voters hold them accountable for their actions for or against the president.
Perhaps a true test of our belief in the Constitution is what we say and do when its processes work against our personal political wishes.
Russ Kyncl, Wheat Ridge
This letter was published in the Feb. 21 edition.If preserving America is important to America s citizens, the next Supreme Court justice needs to be someone who values the Constitution with the same fervor and for the same reasons the signers of the Constitution did. Justice Antonin Scalia earned respect with his dedication to the true interpretation of America s great document and guiding light, first and foremost America s 10 Golden Rules known as the Bill of Rights. Any degradation of any part of the Bill of Rights would be treasonous.
All of our public officials take the same oath of office, which begins: I … do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Any attempt to change the Constitution should be met with charges of treason.
Mark Rawlins, Westminster
This letter was published in the Feb. 21 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
