Obama to nominate Scalia replacement in about 3 weeks, says Harry Reid

Lisa Murkowski thinks the nominee deserves to be vetted by the Senate.

Both professors said the Senate could try a number of tactics to stall the nomination – by not holding hearings or choosing not to vote on the president’s nominee. “The objective of the hearing is to determine whether or not this individual, based on their record … should be named to the highest court in the land”.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley appear unmoved by these inevitable risks.

Scalia died in his sleep last Saturday. Distinguished Scholar, is the author of The Supreme Court on Trial: How the American Justice System Sacrifices Innocent Defendants. This is why Republicans should hesitate before engaging in feckless exercises like Sen. You do not have to take Mr Scalia’s “originalist” view of the constitution to be troubled by the power wielded by the modern court. “And I think it’s also accurate to say we’re not going to confirm”.

Many Senate Republicans say Obama, a Democrat, should not nominate someone to fill Scalia’s seat.

Sixteen other Supreme Court justices likewise were appointed during the past year of a president’s term, including six since 1900. Republicans have argued that the president shouldn’t nominate anyone; O’Connor made clear the nominating choice is up to the president.

Scalia, 79, was the high court’s longest-serving justice of all the current members.

The conservative jurist’s death has set off a major fight over whether Obama should nominate a replacement in the midst of a torrid presidential election.

The Obamas arrived at the Great Hall in the Supreme Court Friday afternoon and stayed for several minutes.

EVAN VUCCI/AFP/Getty Images President Obama has vowed to submit a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate who will be “indisputably” qualified. “We would expect them to do the same thing this time”.

In January, Scalia was a predictable critic of the government’s position in an Alaska-centric case about water rights. His absence leaves the court balanced between its conservative and liberal wings.

“With a 4-4 vote, it effectively affirms the lower court’s decision”, explained Thomas, but allows the issue to be brought before the Supreme Court again for re-argument, once nine justices are seated. “These are two different things”, he said.

It doesn’t necessarily mean an adverse ruling for Sturgeon, Schiff said.

Bernard said Scalia “believes in interpreting the law, not making the law”.

The supreme court, perhaps more than any other tribunal, needs its full complement of members to operate efficiently. The case, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

In a radio interview airing Thursday, Biden disagreed with Republicans who insist that Obama hand off the decision to the next president.

Friends and court staff also watched the ceremony.