In USA Today's article "Supreme Court obstructionism: Our view," the newspaper's editorial board collectively decided that it was unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to prevent the current President from nominating a new Justice during an election period.
After some research on the editorial board, I discovered that most of their controversial articles are paired with an opposing article that argues from a different side. I imagine this would be helpful in formulating a new opinion on a less popular topic, or as a good way to further knowledge and gather opinions on any subject.
The article's general claim states that the "outright obstructionism" put forth by Republican Justices and Senators is oppressive in nature. However, it is also acknowledged that while it is unfair for these officials to stop President Obama from making a nomination, the Senate will ultimately reject any proposals made. This is not an unreasonable assumption, as President Obama has had little success getting proposals and projects past Congress since the beginning of either term. The board referenced recent events regarding Justice Scalia's passing, and questions the constitutionality of the President not being allowed to at least make a nomination.
It is clear that the board intended the article to be read by a democratic, leftward-leaning audience. I base that assumption on numerous attacks on Republican and conservative officials throughout.
All in all, I find that I neither agree nor disagree with the article. I don't believe Obama should waste time making a nomination presently, as any potentials are likely to be disliked by the Senate and conservative Justices. I can only hope that the next President will be wise enough to choose someone based on integrity and actual stance on issues versus political standing alone.
Editorial Board. "Supreme Court obstructionism: Our view." USA Today. 24 February 2016: 1.
Web. 26 February 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment