Bench Memos

Law & the Courts

Seriously, President Obama? Seriously, New York Times?

It’s difficult to take seriously President Obama’s guest post on SCOTUSblog, “A Responsibility I Take Seriously.” For starters, Obama tries, as inconspicuously as possible, to smuggle in his notorious “empathy” standard: Obama wants a justice who will indulge his own “ethics” in deciding what the Constitution means. But this desire is incompatible with his supposed commitment to nominate “someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role[,] who understands that a judges job is to interpret the law, not make the law, [and who will have] a commitment to impartial justice.”

More amazingly, Obama isn’t attentive to the elementary difference between his power to nominate a justice (i.e., send a nomination to the Senate) and his power to appoint a justice (an act that he may take only if and after the Senate has given its consent to his nomination). Six times he uses the word appoint when the context shows that he really means nominate. E.g.: “as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint …”

Relatedly, I’ll highlight the New York Times’s strange claim (in a news article about Obama’s post) that Senate Republicans

disagree with Mr. Obama’s assertion here that he has the power to appoint [a justice]. The power to appoint is shared, they say, meaning that it ultimately rests with the Senate.

No. All that Senate Republicans are noting is the simple reality that the Senate’s advice-and-consent role under the Constitution means that Obama may not appoint a justice to a lifetime position unless and until the Senate has confirmed (i.e., given its consent to) his nomination. That’s a proposition that no informed person can dispute.

It’s thus entirely accurate for Senate Republicans to observe that the president and the Senate have “shared” (but different) powers in the overall appointment process. But that’s very different from claiming that the “power to appoint is shared” (as though senators would be signing their names to the judicial commission). And while it’s certainly possible that some Senate Republicans have spoken imprecisely, no one, in context, could understand them as referring to anything other than the Senate’s incontestable power of advice and consent.

That power of advice and consent, of course, does not mean that the “power to appoint … ultimately rests with the Senate” any more than the president’s power to veto legislation means that the power to legislate ultimately rests with the president.

The only real question is over how the Senate can and should exercise its advice-and-consent role. And the clear answer to that twofold question is that the Senate has the plenary power to exercise its advice-and-consent role however it wishes (as Democrats have long recognized—see my point 1 here) and that the only constraints are political, not constitutional, in nature. The NYT’s tendentious miscasting of the position of Republican senators would seem designed more to confuse than to enlighten. 

Most Popular

PC Culture

Hate-Crime Hoaxes Reflect America’s Sickness

On January 29, tabloid news site TMZ broke the shocking story that Jussie Smollett, a gay black entertainer and progressive activist, had been viciously attacked in Chicago. Two racist white men had fractured his rib, poured bleach on him, and tied a noose around his neck. As they were leaving, they shouted ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Strange Paradoxes of Our Age

Modern prophets often say one thing and do another. Worse, they often advocate in the abstract as a way of justifying their doing the opposite in the concrete. The result is that contemporary culture abounds with the inexplicable — mostly because modern progressivism makes all sorts of race, class, and ... Read More
PC Culture

Fake Newspeople

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a ... Read More

White Progressives Are Polarizing America

To understand how far left (and how quickly) the Democratic party has moved, let’s cycle back a very short 20 years. If 1998 Bill Clinton ran in the Democratic primary today, he’d be instantaneously labeled a far-right bigot. His support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, ... Read More

Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie

In a viral exchange at a congressional hearing last week, the new congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, who is quickly establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the House Democratic freshman class despite stiff competition, launched into Elliott Abrams. She accused the former Reagan official ... Read More

One Last Grift for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the antique Brooklyn socialist who represents Vermont in the Senate, is not quite ready to retire to his lakeside dacha and so once again is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not belong with an agenda about which he cannot be quite entirely ... Read More
PC Culture

Merciless Sympathy

Jussie Smollett’s phony hate-crime story could have been taken apart in 24 hours, except for one thing: Nobody wanted to be the first to call bullsh**. Who will bell the cat? Not the police, and I don’t blame them. Smollett is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump who checks two protected-category ... Read More