SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OMG FWD completely obliterated this thread.

The 'advice and consent' clause does not 'clearly' denote an up or down vote without debate.

All of those quotes are from one side of the aisle and from when a GOP president was sitting. Your critical thinking sucks.

[ChumpDumper]

The president can nominate, but senate has to concur.

So where do you draw the line?

Any time after a second term election?

[Winehole23]

it'll go on oblivious to him, most likely

Logomachyn. A war in which the weapons are words and the wounds punctures in the swim-bladder of self-esteem — a kind of contest in which, the vanquished being unconscious of defeat, the victor is denied the reward of success.

http://dd.pangyre.org/l/logomachy.html

[FromWayDowntown]

The 'advice and consent' clause does not 'clearly' denote an up or down vote without debate.

Well, that's not what Republicans were saying 10 years ago. They were insistent that the Senate should maintain fidelity to its Cons utional obligation to advise and consent (or deny consent) on judicial nominees. And while you can say that the up-and-down vote requires a predicate of initial debate, what Senate Republicans were all saying back then was that all judicial nominees should be given an up-or-down vote; if you believe all nominees are en led to an up-or-down vote, then you must necessarily be acknowledging that all nominees should get timely hearings as well.

There's no way to ignore the fact that their strident song of 10 years ago has changed.

All of those quotes are from one side of the aisle and from when a GOP president was sitting.

And that's precisely the point. They didn't really mean what they said back then about bipartisanship (unless, of course, it was one of their preferred nominees, in which case, they were insistent upon bipartisanship).

[z0sa]

The senate must consent. It is right there in the Cons ution. Regardless of the obvious partisan bull card being played by the Republicans, they have a point. However, the cards are in the president's favor. The Senate republicans hope he wont call their bluff. but they know he will. They end up painting this as just another absolutely egregious attack on American tradition by a sinister Democrat and hope the expected downvote doesnt blow up in their face.

[Chinook]

No one's questioning whether the Senate can legally do what they're doing. We all get that. We just can see they're being hypocrites for doing it now and that it will probably cost a number of them seats if the Democrats play this appropriately.

[SnakeBoy]

Oliver also makes a really good point about Scalia, who was big on the original meaning of the cons ution.



Don't see nuthin' there limiting the Presidents power of nomination.

Oliver also pointed out that even *if* you consider the Thurmond rule valid, that doesn't technically apply until July 20.

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

[SnakeBoy]

Going to be hard to argue credibly that the Supreme court needs to be without a nominee for almost a full year. They are already trying to do just that. "We have to wait until after the presidential election"

They are gambling that they will get back the white house, and holding a branch of government, SCOTUS, hostage.

More classiness out of the GOP in Congress.

lol then Democrats would be classy and let a lame duck stack the court?

During a speech at a convention of the American Cons ution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary cir stances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/fl...#ixzz40GSfk2L5

[FromWayDowntown]

Tom Goldstein in scotusblog on the 3D chess related to replacement:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ni...ntonin-scalia/

Update: Goldstein has superseded this discussion with a similar (but expanded) piece arguing that Loretta Lynch might be the more likely nominee:

But Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. At some point in the process, she likely would have to recuse from her current position, but the Department of Justice could proceed to function with an acting head. Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal.

Perhaps Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle.

The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ho...-will-pay-out/

[RandomGuy]

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

Good point. Senate can hold SCOTUS hostage if that is the will of those elected.

[RandomGuy]

lol then Democrats would be classy and let a lame duck stack the court?

How long is it acceptable to you that the Supreme court not have a functioning plurality?

Next president isn't going to be sworn in for 11 months. Assuming nomination process goes forward that would take at least another 1-3 months.

[RandomGuy]

What's funny is that an extended fight like this will rile up the Dem base. GOP only really wins presidential contests if Democrats stay home.

GOP honchos may think this is a battle worth fighting over, then lose their gamble, get another Democrat in the White House and lose their hold on congress. Seems lose/lose to me from a strategic standpoint, but I lost much confidence in the GOP to produce sane decision makers a while back.

[101A]

Surprise! Repugs are ing LYING to their ignorant base

Justice Kennedy’s confirmation debunks key GOP talking point

Soon after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

The fact of the matter is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should have done his homework before getting this wrong.

The “80 years” talking point spread like wildfire in Republican circles – it was repeated by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio during Saturday night’s debate – to the point that the GOP has convinced itself that at no point in the modern era has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

About 14 justices were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted this morning:

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.

Yes, in Reagan’s eighth year, nine months before Election Day 1988, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Kennedy with ease.

Chuck Grassley, who’d already been in the Senate for seven years at that point, delivered remarks on Feb. 13, 1988 – exactly 28 years to the day before Scalia’s passing – urging the Senate to confirm Kennedy during that election year.

Ronald Reagan, stung by two failed nominees to the high court (Douglas Ginsburg and Robert Bork), said at the time that if Senate Democrats played election-year games by stalling on Kennedy’s nomination in 1988, the “American people will know what’s up.”

And on this, he was correct.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

Everyone involved is always a hypocrite in such matters (look at what Dems were saying in Ike's last year with similar situation). In this case, you have not told the whole truth. Are you interested in doing so, or are you just playing the same political games/issuing talking points like everyone else?

You are just a Dem mouthpiece, after all.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for appointees' getting an up or down vote in a couple months' time, regardless of which party's president does the appointing.

Board Republicans fall silent when asked directly where they draw the line; probably because supporting the current Republican strategy will sound pretty absurd.

[SnakeBoy]

How long is it acceptable to you that the Supreme court not have a functioning plurality?

Next president isn't going to be sworn in for 11 months. Assuming nomination process goes forward that would take at least another 1-3 months.

In this case I don't see any problem with waiting until November to see which way Americans choose to go. It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

As far as political strategy, I think it is another case of the GOP being re ed. They could force Obama to put a moderate on the court. After the Republicans most likely lose in November, they will be forced to accept liberal justice.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

Actually, that's not entirely true, since the Court has now taken what is essentially a full year's worth of cases of significance to various cons uencies and a considerable number of those are now likely to go without an actual determination and to require re-argument next term, which can be extremely costly to private parties and leave substantial uncertainty in areas of the law where clarification was needed. If the Court can't decide cases without 8 justices, it can't serve its primary function.

I agree that the game is politics, but the notion that the game has no immediate consequence strikes me as being incorrect.

[z0sa]

What's funny is that an extended fight like this will rile up the Dem base. GOP only really wins presidential contests if Democrats stay home.

GOP honchos may think this is a battle worth fighting over, then lose their gamble, get another Democrat in the White House and lose their hold on congress. Seems lose/lose to me from a strategic standpoint, but I lost much confidence in the GOP to produce sane decision makers a while back.

Yeah it is odd. If Obama was running again, it would make a lot more sense.

[boutons_deux]

Everyone involved is always a hypocrite in such matters (look at what Dems were saying in Ike's last year with similar situation). In this case, you have not told the whole truth. Are you interested in doing so, or are you just playing the same political games/issuing talking points like everyone else?

You are just a Dem mouthpiece, after all.

[Spurminator]

http://www.theonion.com/article/obam...view:1:Default

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia



WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong sexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of , gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

[101A]

So, Yes.

[SnakeBoy]

Actually, that's not entirely true, since the Court has now taken what is essentially a full year's worth of cases of significance to various cons uencies and a considerable number of those are now likely to go without an actual determination and to require re-argument next term, which can be extremely costly to private parties and leave substantial uncertainty in areas of the law where clarification was needed. If the Court can't decide cases without 8 justices, it can't serve its primary function.

I agree that the game is politics, but the notion that the game has no immediate consequence strikes me as being incorrect.

Well yes some cases will be affected but most will not end in a tie. There are a lot more 9-0 decisions than 5-4 splits on the court. Sure there will be some big issue cases that essentially get put off until next year but that's not the end of the world.

[rmt]

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

See the Trumpism

[z0sa]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...imes&smtyp=cur

According to this article the longest the Senate has ever taken to vote on a nominee is 125 days. The average is 25. If the republicans are looking at completely blocking the nomination, they would need to take their obstructionist agenda far beyond historical levels. It seems theyll have to vote on at least one nominee. Maybe two.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...imes&smtyp=cur

According to this article the longest the Senate has ever taken to vote on a nominee is 125 days. The average is 25. If the republicans are looking at completely blocking the nomination, they would need to take their obstructionist agenda far beyond historical levels. It seems theyll have to vote on at least one nominee. Maybe two.

To the posters here who are fine with the obstructionist agenda, what is your cutoff date? Or is it infinite if you hate the guy in office enough.

[SnakeBoy]

See the Trumpism

I took a facebook quiz to see which candidate I most agreed with...it was Trump #1 and Paul #2.