Quote from: mac1 on February 22, 2016, 10:58:30 PM
The Constitution also states that any powers not specifically granted by it to the Federal Government are delegated to the individual states.  Thus, it looks like that should be a matter for the individual states to decide.

Well,  the USA collectively decided in 1861 that the Federal Government can override the States on issues it deems important.  We celebrate that decision.  So regardless of what the constitution says the individual States do not possess the authority to do things that the Federal Government feels is wrong.  They have not possessed that authority for the last 155 years.


Sapere Aude

Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the Senate, says the President should not appoint a successor.  But actually, it is a Constitutional duty of the President:

"He [the President] . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law . . ."

-U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

So in urging the President not to make an appointment, McConnell is actually urging the President not to fulfill a duty affirmatively commanded by the Constitution.

It was ok when a democrat majority senate blocked a Bush appointment under the same situation. Why should it be any different now?

Quote from: mac1 on February 23, 2016, 08:12:49 PM
It was ok when a democrat majority senate blocked a Bush appointment under the same situation. Why should it be any different now?

Minor quibble:  The Democrats pretty much said in 1992 (Biden) and 2008 (Shumer) that they would block a Supreme Court nomination if the opportunity arose, but the opportunity didn't actually present itself.

I don't actually have a problem with your basic point, though.     

Quote from: mac1 on February 22, 2016, 10:58:30 PM
The Constitution also states that any powers not specifically granted by it to the Federal Government are delegated to the individual states.  Thus, it looks like that should be a matter for the individual states to decide.

The problem with a strict interpretation of that clause is that it assumes that the founding fathers saw everything there was to be seen. The right of Congress and the people to make amendments to the Constitution shows that even they knew that wasn't true. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to vet laws against the Constitution. Of course there have been bad laws, bad amendments, and bad interpretations of the Constitution, and every losing side in every Supreme Court decision has believed that that decision, that law, that amendment was bad. Some have been born out in the test of time, some have not. The one thing we have learned is that social issues have to be common to be effective, but effective doesn't mean right or good. That's why there will always be push back in the dichotomy of state's rights/federal intervention. Neither one is always for the common good.