The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia came as a complete shock to just about everyone who has watched the court over the last few years. After all, most veteran observers were more focused on whether or not 83-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire before the end of the Obama presidency.
But Scalia’s sudden and unexpected passing is (or certainly should be) a reminder to all gun owners of how tenuous our rights can become in the blink of an eye. Scalia was the most reliable defender of Constitutional rights in recent history. But “elections have consequences,” and the election of Barack Obama means he will pick Scalia’s replacement. And if you think his choice won’t be disastrous for gun owners, think again.
Everything a president does can potentially affect our lives, but the selection of a Supreme Court Justice is the one thing that lives on well after a president leaves office. Laws can be overturned. Executive orders can be rescinded. But unless they decide to retire, SCOTUS Justices serve for life.
If you are reading this, you are probably already well aware of the importance of judges, even in the lower appellate courts, when it comes to your rights. Yet there are still a disturbing number of gun owners who seem oblivious to the threat that a single appointment to the Supreme Court can pose to their rights. And if Obama’s previous picks are any indication, the threat to gun owners is extremely high.
Unfortunately, a number of politicians, some of whom would likely be on the right side when it comes to our rights, have overreacted to Scalia’s death, basically calling for a suspension of the nomination process “until the next president takes office.” This is a huge political blunder, because it gives Obama just the ammunition he needs to label such a move as “stone-walling” and violating Constitutional principles.
After all, the Constitution is clear on the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court. When a vacancy occurs, regardless of the cause, it is the responsibility, and the right, of the President to nominate a replacement, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to give their “advice and consent” on his choice.
However, contrary to wildly inaccurate statements being tossed about, mostly by Obama supporters, the Senate is not obligated to approve any president’s nominee. They are required only to give a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.
Most legal scholars I know suggest that the proper course is to have the President offer his nominees, and then let the Senate decide whether to confirm them or not. If that leads to no one being confirmed before Obama leaves office, so be it. But it would be following the Constitution.
In the meantime, you and I must make our voices heard, loudly and relentlessly, to both Senators in our respective states. Let them know that you want the next Supreme Court Justice to be an unbiased “umpire” who follows the Constitution, not a “judicial pirate” who “legislates from the bench.”
Then, no matter what: vote. Remember, we are where we are today in large part because in 2012, several million “purists” threw a hissy-fit and stayed home, giving Barack Obama a second term.
Remember, the next president will likely face at least one, perhaps two, additional Supreme Court appointments during his or her term. And the country simply cannot afford another “president-by-default.”
Vote.
