JOHN WALLACE: No time for hocus-pocus with the Supreme Court

With the unexpected passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court on Saturday, a seismic crack appeared in the political landscape of America. The United States became a little less united. In a more perfect union, protocol would dictate flags flying at half-staff, a somber funeral and then a guessing game as to who the new justice will be. But with the balance of the Supreme Court seemingly at stake, we are treading into uncharted waters. Fasten your safety belts.

It should be noted that Justice Scalia was a legal giant, admired by his peers and in the eyes of the legal community. Some of his liberal associates on the Supreme Court were among his friends and praised his keen legal mind before, during and after his tenure. Justice Ginsburg has said that on the occasions that they came down on different sides of a case, his written dissents against her arguments almost always were spot-on and made her a better justice. He was true to his vision that the Constitution should be viewed through the eyes of the men who wrote it and their original intent. The liberal-leaning justices think of it as a living, breathing document that has to be massaged to fit with the times.

The immediate reaction of the right was textbook stages of grief, which are, in no particular order, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance. There was no denial, it happened at some remote ranch in Texas where he was meeting with 35 or so unidentified “substantial business people.”

The Republican Party chose instead to start with anger. “The president better not even think of replacing him. Not on our watch. The people will decide the next justice with the result of the next election.”

Actually, the people already decided in 2008 and 2012.

I’m guessing the next stage will be depression when they realize it is not in their best interest to deny the president his constitutional right to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia. After that will be the bargaining phase as they search for a qualified replacement. And finally the acceptance stage and we can move on.

I find it interesting that a political party that prides itself on its strict adherence to living a life in accordance with the Bible and the Constitution would attempt to subvert justice because things aren’t going their way.

Some people say that God works in mysterious ways. Maybe he is putting his thumb on the scales of justice and saying it’s time for the liberals to lead for a while. You might ask, “What would Jesus do?” I think he was quite clear in his views of secular authority. In Mark 12:17, Jesus was confronted by spies from Pontius Pilate who tried to trick Jesus into saying the Jews should not pay taxes to Rome. Jesus first denounces them as hypocrites and then asks whose face is on the coin. “Caesar,” they answered. Jesus said, “Then render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.”

Jesus would want us to, in accordance with our laws and regulations, to give the president his rights in accordance with our Constitution. I think the late justice would concur.

Justice Scalia was a big believer in trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution. Article Two of the U.S. Constitution states that “the President shall nominate and, with the advise and consent of the Senate, appoint Judges of the Supreme Court …” There are no restrictions about the last year of his term or selecting someone of the same ideological persuasion as the person being replaced.

After 40 years of a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, it seemed inevitable that this day would come. Just because the SCOTUS majority may change is no reason to manipulate procedures in the hope that Republicans will take the White House. Justice Scalia himself already offered his opinion. In his written dissent of the June 2015 decision in the case of Obergefell vs Hodges (same-sex marriage) Justice Scalia stated, “Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not relevant.”

Fairness is hardcoded into our DNA. It is the basis of any civilization. Denying the president the right to pick the next Supreme Court justice would be unconstitutional as well as unfair.

Do not disgrace Justice Scalia by using his name to commit procedural jiggery-pokery in his name to make applesauce of his beloved Constitution.

John Wallace, of Leesburg, writes occasional opinion columns.