The Supreme Court, Post-Scalia

Here's Linda Hirshman on why, on balance, even a 4-4 divided Supreme Court is generally good news for President Obama and Democrats:

By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

But the GOP might soon reconsider if they see the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That’s what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it.

Hirshman's analysis of the Court, post- Scalia, is well worth reading, as it offers a preview of possible rulings which would mostly redound to the progressive/ Democratic side.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has an editorial on Scalia's legacy.  This is the part we'll remember:

From abortion rights to marriage equality and desegregation, Justice Scalia opposed much of the social and political progress of the late 20th century and this one. He wanted to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision on women’s rights to privacy, he dissented on the decision that said anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, and he dissented on decisions that it was unconstitutional to execute mentally disabled or teenage prisoners. He disapproved of the Miranda decision that requires police to read prisoners their rights.

Now, we await President Obama's decision on a successor.

BONUS:  David Waldman's response to McConnell's latest obstruction.

Maybe we should wait for the next Treasury Secretary to authorize payments for Mitch McConnell's salary.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) February 14, 2016