Scotus

[Aglaopheme]

So, we can all agree if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court the nomination should come from the next administration, correct?

 

[Wrong Element]

There's a fairly long tradition of justices not timing their retirements for an election year, because it would look unavoidably political (Thurgood Marshall is the last justice to even retire in the third year of a presidential term, and he definitely would have preferred not to give Bush the chance to name his replacement, but he couldn't go on any longer). Earl Warren called it quits in 1968 because he was worried Nixon would pick his successor, and his proposed replacement was filibustered as a response.

That has mostly dissuaded anyone else from trying it, but the filibuster is gone now, so I'm not convinced Thomas, Alito, or both won't pull off the ultra-weaselly move given the unlikelihood Trump will be around after January. There would be nothing but shame to stop Trump and McConnell from even doing it in a lame duck session, and both are shameless. The Dems could promise to retaliate, but they aren't very good at that traditionally.

As far as a vacancy due to someone's death, those used to be filled by the incumbent president without question regardless of when the death occurred, but I'm certainly not going to endorse one set of rules for Obama and another for Trump.

So yes: next administration.

 

[KeithD]

Tit deserves tat. O'Connell wouldn't do the honorable thing, though.

Elsewhere some Trumpette suggested that Roger Stone should be nominated for a "soon" vacancy. It was a joke, but I thought it was a good idea. Even the Republicans in the Senate would hold that one up long enough that the job wouldn't be filled until after the next inauguration.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I vote, fuck no!

 

[ishtat]

If you wanted a more than slightly controversial nomination Trump could always nominate William Barr.

 

[KeithD]

If you wanted a more than slightly controversial nomination Trump could always nominate William Barr.

I've suggested that on another thread. There's always Trump's sister, Maryanne, too.

One that we can be fairly sure won't happen is Jeff Sessions, although it would be fun if that were Biden's first nominee.

 

[phrodeau]

Any opinions about Trump’s SCOTUS picks so far?

 

[Ziggins]

Or the next Senate majority leader.

 

[KowTow]

Tit deserves tat. O'Connell wouldn't do the honorable thing, though.

Elsewhere some Trumpette suggested that Roger Stone should be nominated for a "soon" vacancy. It was a joke, but I thought it was a good idea. Even the Republicans in the Senate would hold that one up long enough that the job wouldn't be filled until after the next inauguration.

it wasnt!

 

[SpeareChucker]

So, we can all agree if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court the nomination should come from the next administration, correct?

I smell butthurt...




Still haven't gotten over it?



Sadz...

 

[FlowersForFun]

So, we can all agree if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court the nomination should come from the next administration, correct?

Why is that?


Also 'stick it to the left' because those who are absolutely against individual liberty in favor of collective authority, especially in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights....shouldn't be calling themselves liberals.

There is little to nothing liberal about the "libs" anymore.....because they are leftist, not liberals.

 

[surdeep]

Even John Revolta will wait weeks or months to begin the search for a new breast cancer beard.

This OP can't even show the courtesy of waiting for Ruth to die.

 

[SpeareChucker]

This whole scree is based on the terrifying thought that Trump
might appoint a conservative Justice who will always vote
for the right-wingers (did I really forget to type nut-job?)
you know, like Justice Roberts, who upon nomination
was feared, hated and vilified...



How did that work out for the rabid right-wingers?
Was all of the gnashing of teeth and hang-wringing
by the "tolerant" Left actually justified in hindsight?

 

[WillJ8787]

Yep, this is why it isn't a good idea to try to stack the court on any political basis.

I doesn't work out for either party like they thought it would. The SC acts differently, non-payment, usually law based.

 

[SpeareChucker]

When you are appointed for life, it seems that the Justices begin
to make their rulings based upon their perceived legacy as if they
wanted to join the historical judicial "ring of honor" upon death...

 

[Conager]

You did not make multiple selections an options.

The bottom three options are correct, yes Trump should, it would be precedence (for when a party controls the White house and the Senate) and it would be delightful to stick it to the "libs"<sic> (who are manifestly illiberal) because they are still whinging about Garland who was never going to be confirmed, election year or not.

Ideally Amy Comey Barrett for the Notorious RBG, who was actually a good Justice even if I don't agree with her point of view.

 

[kissedcherry]

All part of the swamp

The degree of corruption in the court system makes it clear that all of he courts including the supreme court are loaded with swamp creatures. There are a few good judges that will set political and financial concerns aside. But the percentage of good judges is very low. What a clusterfuck.

 

[RobDownSouth]

When you are appointed for life, it seems that the Justices begin
to make their rulings based upon their perceived legacy as if they
wanted to join the historical judicial "ring of honor" upon death...

Somewhere in the bowels of the Hitler hotel in the stygian depths of Hell, Antonin Scalia takes a momentary pause in his eternal torment to gaze at AJ's post. He smiles.

 

[Conager]

The degree of corruption in the court system makes it clear that all of he courts including the supreme court are loaded with swamp creatures. There are a few good judges that will set political and financial concerns aside. But the percentage of good judges is very low. What a clusterfuck.

It's not really that. Justices are usually judges that before that are lawyers. Lawyers are overwhelmingly Democrat or at least supportive of Democrats be ause Democrats consistently block tort reform and favor convoluted tax laws and endless regulations all of which provides lucrative employment for the astonishing number of lawyers and non-layer law-school graduates in the US.

Law School professors skew hard left. They are hacks that would not make it as trial lawyers, usually.

 

[Ramone45]

So, we can all agree if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court the nomination should come from the next administration, correct?

You mean Trump's second term?

 

[hogjack]

Law School professors skew hard left.

Correct. A high percentage hate the US.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Correct. A high percentage hate the US.

Although they will almost all deny it.

They want to change the USA into the opposite of everything it's ever been or aspired to be......because they are the REAL patriots.

 

[HisArpy]

Although they will almost all deny it.

They want to change the USA into the opposite of everything it's ever been or aspired to be......because they are the REAL patriots.

People in general are lazy. They default to the "easy" way of getting by. Which is why they like handouts because they don't have to work for them.

Socialism appeals to them because it's "easy". At least that's how it's billed.

Anyone care to guess what happens when a socialist state determines that there aren't enough earners? Actual slave labor is probably a good deal in comparison to what happens then.

 

[pantalaimonlyra]

It's such a crapshoot, honestly. Can't say I'm displeased with the recent rulings that have been made even if I'm not necessarily a fan of the individuals.

Whoever is appointed, by whomever, I'd just like them to be sane. I can't believe that's my baseline at this point.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I smell butthurt...




Still haven't gotten over it?



Sadz...

So, you’re going with stick it to the libs. Got it.

This whole scree is based on the terrifying thought that Trump
might appoint a conservative Justice who will always vote
for the right-wingers (did I really forget to type nut-job?)
you know, like Justice Roberts, who upon nomination
was feared, hated and vilified...



How did that work out for the rabid right-wingers?
Was all of the gnashing of teeth and hang-wringing
by the "tolerant" Left actually justified in hindsight?

Sorry, you’re only allowed to vote once.