With just under a year left in President Barrack Obama's last term and several pending items on the top court's agenda, the sudden passing of Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia ripped open a void that's poised to reshape the landscape of American government. And that's compounded by the fact that it's an election year, one in which opinions on highly-charged issues are abundant.
Scalia, 79, was confirmed dead a few hours before the conservative presidential hopefuls took the stage in South Carolina on Saturday to each share a vision of the world under their respective presidencies.
Even before the debate began, pundits were posturing for either Obama to let the next president replace Scalia or to fill the void as soon as possible in order to move forward on pending court decisions.
Mayday, Mayday
Scalia, the first Italian American to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, was mulling several key votes on court cases or he had already made up his mind and submitted his position. Either way, his votes on those cases no longer matter.
Scalia's death leaves the Supreme Court split, with four conservatives and four liberal Justices remaining. It's a recipe for gridlock on the pending cases.
There's the case involving the Obamacare mandate requiring nonprofits, even those with religious affiliations, to provide contraception. There's Obama's executive action on protections for millions of illegal immigrants who'd hope for asylum from war. And there's a case that's seeking an answer on whether or not Texas' anti-abortion laws place undue strain on women in the state.
Going by his record, Scalia would have almost certainly cast votes that upheld conservative ideologies on each of the aforementioned cases. In the event of Supreme Court gridlocks, the decisions reached by the lower courts will be upheld.
Fearing the moderate president would attempt to install a liberal tie-breaker, the Republican dominated senate will undoubtedly push back on whoever Obama tries to appoint to fill the vacancy.
Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (R), wasted no time in making it clear that the Senate would oppose whoever Obama attempt to appoint. Over the last eight decades, it's been standard practice to abstain from confirming Supreme Court nominees, stated McConnell.
"Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said.
But with so many critical issues awaiting a Supreme Court decision, the Senate is obligated to fill vacancies "as soon as possible," stated Senator and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.
"It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat," Reid said. "Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential constitutional responsibilities."
The Man Who Was Antonin Scalia
Known for his blunt explanations for highly conservative take on the Constitution, Scalia, early on, was more concerned with teaching than advancing his legal career.
He worked at a law firm in Cleveland and worked as a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, before entering into public service under the Nixon administration in 1972. He served in the capacity of general counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy and, two years later, was installed as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Council.
After a short stays at a conservative think tank and another teaching job, Scalia was appointed as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by the Reagan administration in 1986.
As a Justice, "Antonin Scalia was considered to be one of the more prominent legal thinkers of his generation," says Biography.com. "It was also through his blunt (some would say scathing) dissents that he earned a reputation as combative and insulting. And yet to many who knew him personally, he was unpretentious, charming, and funny."
Scalia was both admired and abhorred for his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, known as originalism. Despite being over two centuries removed from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Scalia interpreted the document in a manner he felt was true to what the countries founding fathers intended when they drew it up.
The admitted social conservative was against the idea of a "living constitution," which led many to believe that he was against progress. Using the example of abortion, Scalia noted in a 2008 CBS interview that the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of abortion. But it provides a framework for abortion legislation to pass through.
"A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change," said Scalia in a CBS interview. "It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."
