SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

[boutons_deux]

The truth is, Republicans would likely dodge that question by calling it academic until there's an actual nominee, but it would be a useful exercise (I think) to test just how committed they are to this notion that a lame duck President should not nominate -- no matter what -- in an election year.

Nominate a Bork, have the Repug Jud committee invite him/he (how about Priscilla garbage Owen of dubya's 5th Circuit/NOLA?) to Congress, then the morning of the Senate hearing, Barry withdraws his nominee.

[Aztecfan03]

what Biden said was not absolute, was said just before the summer recess late June, not in Feb, and most of all:

But more important still is the part of the 1992 speech that went overlooked. ThinkProgress noted that,in the same remarks,

"Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate,

or moderates his selections absent consultation,

then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

[boutons_deux]

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

Barry has invited Repug(s) to WH to discuss the nominaiton. Repugs don't even respond, so GFY

[FromWayDowntown]

So, not quite as aggressive as floating a Cruz vetting, but:

President Barack Obama said Wednesday it would be "difficult" for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to explain his decision not to consider a Supreme Court nominee without looking like he's motivated by politics.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a Republican, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, as a potential nominee. A source confirmed to CNN that the White House is vetting Sandoval, although he has not been actively involved in the process.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politi...nee/index.html

Sandoval doesn't have the traditional SCOTUS bona fides, since he's not a graduate of an elite law school and has no experience on an appellate bench, so there would likely be merit-based reasons to defeat his nomination, which is why it seems unlikely that he'd actually be nominated. But it's potentially a clever ploy by the White House and could force the Republicans to admit to pure political obstructionism.

[Aztecfan03]

So, not quite as aggressive as floating a Cruz vetting, but:



http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politi...nee/index.html

Sandoval doesn't have the traditional SCOTUS bona fides, since he's not a graduate of an elite law school and has no experience on an appellate bench, so there would likely be merit-based reasons to defeat his nomination, which is why it seems unlikely that he'd actually be nominated. But it's potentially a clever ploy by the White House and could force the Republicans to admit to pure political obstructionism.

him being pro-choice doesn't help if it's a ploy though.

[rmt]

Don't they have to ask this republican governor if he wants to be a SC judge? If he's been a politician/governor, I doubt he wants the life of a SC justice - very different job/life.

[FromWayDowntown]

him being pro-choice doesn't help if it's a ploy though.

He's a Roman Catholic Republican and while I doubt that he'll actually be nominated, such a nomination would be far more centrist than most would expect out of President Obama (and, not surprisingly, a pragmatic choice by the President) and an attempt to replace Justice Scalia with someone with a similar background. Again, I think this notion will not come to fruition (at least it most likely won't come through fruition with Sandoval) but it's a pretty far cry from the belief that the President would just insist upon a liberal ideologue to fill the vacancy.

If nominated but not confirmed, Sandoval would also force Republicans to eat one of their own or to create a precedent of complete inaction (one that doesn't actually exist at this point) that they'll likely whine about if and when the tables are turned.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't they have to ask this republican governor if he wants to be a SC judge? If he's been a politician/governor, I doubt he wants the life of a SC justice - very different job/life.

Of course he has to accept, but very few lawyers or politicians would ever turn down the chance for lifetime tenure on the highest court in the land. He would have far more power and prestige as a Supreme Court justice than as the Governor of Nevada.

I think that to turn down that opportunity (which wouldn't likely come again), one would basically have to be either completely unwilling to risk the exposure that confirmation hearings might bring or already be on track for even higher offices in the not-too-distant future. People in the know (Tom Goldstein, in particular) mention Kamala Harris as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, but have suggested that she would likely turn down that nomination because she will almost certainly win a Senate seat in the Fall and then be positioned well to run for President:

I’ve long said that the most likely candidate for the next Democratic appointment was California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is fifty-one. A female nominee has significant advantages as well. That is particularly true for the candidacy of the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. For reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think her nomination is difficult to oppose ideologically, given her history as a prosecutor.

If Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.

I would think that for most people, declining a Supreme Court nomination would take something like that.

[boutons_deux]

Sandoval immediately rejected by repugs

Repugs say NOBODY EVER by obama

[FuzzyLumpkins]

citizens united should be a litmus test.

[boutons_deux]

‘I’m here to do my job,’ says senator who isn’t doing his job

After some vacillating that left his intentions unclear, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has made up his mind. When it comes to dealing with the Supreme Court vacancy, the far-right Iowan won’t hold a hearing on President Obama’s unnamed nominee; he will not support a vote on the nominee; and he’s not even sure whether or not he’ll accept a White House invitation to have a conversation about the nominee.

The ridiculous posture leaves Grassley in the unenviable position of becoming a laughingstock for the ages. As of yesterday, however, the Republican senator said he just doesn’t care about history’s judgment.

“Do you think I spend my days wondering about how Chuck Grassley will go down in history?” he told reporters on Wednesday, according to The Des Moines Register.

“I don’t care if I ever go down in history,” added Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I’m here to do my job.”

Those six words – “I’m here to do my job” – may be the most interesting Grassley has uttered in quite some time, because it suggests the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has grown confused about what his job actually is.

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

[rmt]

Sandoval: I do not wish to be considered for Supreme Court job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whit...rt-job-n525791

[Splits]

Sandoval should have waited until November to announce he wasn't interested in the job. What a jerk, making an announcement like that in an election year.

[ElNono]

Justice Scalia’s Death Prompts Dow Chemical to Settle Lawsuit

Antonin Scalia’s empty Supreme Court seat has cost Dow Chemical $835 million.

That is how much the chemical company is paying in a decade-old lawsuit that was heading to the top court. Dow decided the death of Justice Scalia, a conservative judge, changed the balance of the suit and settled. It is a reminder that the gridlocked politics surrounding the Supreme Court have real-world effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/bu...e-lawsuit.html

[ElNono]

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

...

“Class-actions is one of the areas where Justice Scalia’s absence is likely to have an impact,” said Gregory Garre, an appellate lawyer at Latham & Watkins in Washington and previously President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer. “Companies will have to be careful what they ask for in seeking review, or at least face an added burden in prevailing at the court on class-action issues.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-case-for-835m

[boutons_deux]

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

excellent mindreading.

Obama's been getting killed because he's been playing softball vs Repug smash-mouth hardball.

Repugs didn't block Sotomayor or Kagan, because they didn't change the balance of court away from the politicized VRWC Repug shills.

There's plenty of Congressional recesses in the next few months. Obama should do it.

[boutons_deux]

Scalia's Death Is Already Making Biz And Conservative Activists Avoid SCOTUS

The Supreme Court has only been in session without Justice Antonin Scalia for a week. But already, his death is affecting cases, and particularly decisions not to take certain cases to the Supreme Court without the guarantee of his vote.

Last week, Dow Chemical made headlines by opting for a $835 million settlement in a class action lawsuit rather than risk having the case heard by a Scalia-less Supreme Court. A lower court had already ruled against the company for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for industrial chemicals, and prior to the settlement, Dow had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

In the absence of Scalia's vote, taking the case to the eight other justices risked the company not just a loss in the specific case, but the potential for a broader ruling that would have put companies in a tougher position in future class action lawsuits.

The current court line-up "increased the likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits,"

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association announced Thursday it would not pe ion the court to overturn an appeals court decision upholding a New York gun control law.

the group argued that currently there are "only four justices committed to a proper understanding of the Second Amendment,"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scal...+%28TPMNews%29

[RandomGuy]

Sandoval: I do not wish to be considered for Supreme Court job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whit...rt-job-n525791

Wasn't surprised.

[RandomGuy]

Justice Scalia’s Death Prompts Dow Chemical to Settle Lawsuit

Antonin Scalia’s empty Supreme Court seat has cost Dow Chemical $835 million.

That is how much the chemical company is paying in a decade-old lawsuit that was heading to the top court. Dow decided the death of Justice Scalia, a conservative judge, changed the balance of the suit and settled. It is a reminder that the gridlocked politics surrounding the Supreme Court have real-world effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/bu...e-lawsuit.html

Holy .

That does have some interesting effects.

4-4 splits mean that the lower court ruling stand.

Which means if you get a lower court tilted one direction or the other... those lower courts just got a whole lot more important.

[spurraider21]

Holy .

That does have some interesting effects.

4-4 splits mean that the lower court ruling stand.

Which means if you get a lower court tilted one direction or the other... those lower courts just got a whole lot more important.

true but it still doesn't establish a SCOTUS precedent so it could easily be revisisted

[RandomGuy]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

[baseline bum]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Counting your chickens too early man. Hillary is a terrible candidate.

[DMX7]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

Obama would be great. He is a cons utional scholar. And who would know better whether his executive orders are cons utional than the man who wrote them?

[RandomGuy]

Counting your chickens too early man. Hillary is a terrible candidate.

I somewhat agree. I think the Democratic party could do better.

That said, she is still better than any of the clowns currently still in the GOP car...

[RandomGuy]