Supreme Court seat vacancy sparks discussion
Nine seats filled by nine people makeup one of the most powerful courts in the world. These nine seats are the Supreme Court, the highest law of the land in the United States. The nine justices who sit on it can overturn any verdict from any of the courts beneath them. At least they could, until Justice Antonin Scalia died earlier this year. The empty seat created by Scalia’s death has caused some major problems in U.S. politics. This was the topic of the forum “Fight for the Future of the Supreme Court,” sponsored by the department of social sciences.
The forum was opened by associate professor of political science Travis Nelson, who is also the department chair of social sciences. Nelson gave some background information on each Supreme Court Justice, including the late Antonin Scalia who died in February 2016. Nelson said that for years, there have been four liberal justices, four conservative justices and one moderate judge. Nelson said the moderate judge, Anthony Kennedy, was “secretly the most powerful man in the country.”
Following his introduction, Nelson turned things over to political science lecturer Adrienne Jones. Jones began with an overview of the Constitution, which lays out the duties for each branch of government. She then spoke about Article III of the Constitution, which outlines the Supreme Court and its powers. She also said that the number of justices on the Supreme Court is not permanent; at other times there have been four justices, ten justices and nine justices, like there are now. Or there were, until Antonin Scalia’s death.
Jones continued her discussion by explaining that the number of Supreme Court justices was meant to take the “politics” out of the appointment process. This is not the case, Jones said. When Justice Scalia died, within a few hours, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged not to hold confirmation hearings. Shortly after that, President Obama tapped Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. The Senate still has not held any hearings, because Senator McConnell and the other Republicans in the Senate have simply refused to hold any hearings. Jones used that to explain that real issue with appointing a new justice was that there is no real political issue.
“It’s all partisan. If that next justice is a liberal, then it’s a wrap,” Jones said. From there, Jones passed the forum to political science professor and program coordinator John Rink.
“Supreme Court justices and their colleagues in the lower courts are human beings,” Rink said. He said that the justices are subject to varying degrees of social and political pressures, which expose human flaws and uncertainties. Rink said that these pressures can lead jurors and justices into error, “which must be corrected if the moral and legal universe is to remain in a sort of balance.”
Following Rink’s discussion, there was a question and answer session. One of the first things that came up was Rink’s incarceration. Rink was incarcerated for 10 months in 1972 for refusing induction into the Army. Another subject of questions concerned Judge Merrick Garland and his possible appointment to the Supreme Court.
“It’s better to deal with the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t around the corner,” Rink said about Garland.
Associate professor of political science Shan Sappleton said that the topic of the forum was important for a number of reasons.
“[The forum] lets students know how their decision to vote for the President matters, as it indirectly decides who gets to sit on the Supreme Court,” Sappleton.
In a later interview, Nelson said that Scalia dying was a “major bombshell issue in politics.” He also said the forum showed how “important and political the Supreme Court is.”