Yes, Obama Can Appoint Scalia Replacement

"The President... by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court."

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

The sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia has brought widespread opining from Republicans that President Obama should allow his successor to appoint Justice Scalia's. Make no mistake: this is nothing more than a manifestation of a collective conniption fit on the right, resultant of their recognition that they stand on the precipice of losing their majority on the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that the voters should have a say; they did, when they reelected President Obama in 2012 by more than five million votes, as has been pointed out by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Barack Obama is the President of the United States; as such, our Constitution assigns him the responsibility of making appointments to the high court.

A presidential term lasts four years, even if many conservatives now seem to believe it lasts three. Eleven months remain in the President's current term, which is more than enough time for the Senate to perform its constitutional responsibility. Speaking of which, advice and consent does not mean, for example, blanket statements from some Senate Republicans that they would reject any nomination from President Obama before he has even named a nominee. The advice and consent provision has been exemplified in recent history by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Sen. Graham voted to approve President Obama's nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the high court. Sen. Graham, of course, does not align ideologically with now-Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, but recognized his role as a senator was to evaluate fitness to serve, not ideological standing. In explaining his vote to confirm Elena Kagan, Sen. Graham said, "the constitution, in my view, puts an obligation on me not to replace my judgment for (President Obama's), not to think of the hundred reasons I would pick someone different." Graham went on to say, "I view my duty as to protect the Judiciary and to ensure that hard-fought elections have meaning in our system."

On CNN's State of the Union program on February 14, 2016, influential conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt posited, "lame ducks don't make lifetime appointments." Since when? The constitution provides otherwise. And labeling President Obama a "lame duck" does not make him so. The way to honor the memory a self-professed constitutional originalist like Justice Scalia is not to defy the constitution. The Senate must do its constitutionally mandated job and consider the President's high court nomination when the time comes. If the Senate Republican leadership neglects its responsibility, the members thereof can never again claim allegiance to the constitution.

Time to Eliminate the Statute of Limitations for Sexual Assault

On December 30, 2015, legendary actor and comedian Bill Cosby was arraigned in the Philadelphia suburb of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, on charges of sexual assault. This follows years of accusations from nearly sixty women - a number that continues to grow - of drugging and raping them.

There is a distinct legal reason that charges were filed when they were against Cosby in this case, and why Cosby has not been charged concerning the swaths of other victims he allegedly assaulted. That reason is the statute of limitations. By way of explanation, this statute provides that a potential defendant cannot face criminal charges after a given period of time. The statute of limitations in sexual assault cases in Pennsylvania is twelve years. The alleged assault for which Cosby was charged took place in January 2004, so come January 2016, the Montgomery County District Attorney would have been legally barred from prosecuting Cosby. The statute of limitations has already expired as concerns the other survivors.

Rape victims often face aftereffects that are excruciating. Survivors sometimes tragically blame themselves and feel shame. They might not know where to turn for help. They may not have family and/or friends on whom to lean for support. Some cultures, incredibly, assign fault to the attacked, not the attacker. A survivor might additionally consider the grueling process of prosecuting her/his attacker, which entails facing the rapist in court and relaying - and therefore reliving - what happened during the course of the attack repeatedly, and conclude that seeking justice is not worth the additional trauma.

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and that is as it should be. If you kill, and then somehow evade capture for any amount of time, you will face charges for that crime regardless of how much time has elapsed since said crime was committed. Rape is a monstrous crime, arguably as egregious as murder; rape victimizes in the most intimate way possible. The challenges sexual assault survivors face subsequent to the crime are gut-wrenching enough without facing a deadline. 34 states currently have statutes of limitations, according to the National Center for Victims of Crime. While Pennsylvania's is twelve years, in some states, such as Connecticut, it is as little as five years.

Those who have survived rape should not have to be saddled with the compounded injustice of the inability to pursue legal remedies. Survivors of sexual assault face lifelong challenges resultant of their attack and attacker(s); we as a society should not make recovery yet more difficult by imposing a deadline to seek justice. It is time to eliminate the statute of limitations for cases of sexual assault nationally once and for all.