Justice Scalia Dead

[sr71plt]

So, in addition to everything else this election year, we get to have a fight over a new Supreme Court Justice.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20160213/07e0b2be-f462-4fac-b2a5-d2ca49126489

 

[phrodeau]

We can get by with eight for a while. Call it Sequester Two.

 

[sr71plt]

In the Republican presidential debate now going on, the candidates say a lame duck president doesn't have the right to nominate a justice between now and the inauguration. I wonder what a Republican president would do.

 

[loquere]

In the Republican presidential debate now going on, the candidates say a lame duck president doesn't have the right to nominate a justice between now and the inauguration. I wonder what a Republican president would do.

They're all idiots.

 

[mark_j]

In the Republican presidential debate now going on, the candidates say a lame duck president doesn't have the right to nominate a justice between now and the inauguration. I wonder what a Republican president would do.

Probably the same thing.. with either a Dem senate or a split senate you'd still get the same results..

Nothing

 

[ishtat]

In the Republican presidential debate now going on, the candidates say a lame duck president doesn't have the right to nominate a justice between now and the inauguration. I wonder what a Republican president would do.

I suspect that the current Congress doubts the right of this President to do pretty much anything.

Obama will nominate of course - hopefully someone who the tea partiers will object to, but not so liberal that their objection is reasonable. After all it is entertainment - isn't it?

 

[MichaelinChina]

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck. And I suspect the majority of Americans don't either.

 

[about_average]

Agree 100%. Obama will nominate someone, but the GOP will block them and we'll be stuck with 8 for a while. Not the first time.

Only once for that long since the Civil War and the average is less than two months for a replacement.

Only one vacancy since the Civil War has lasted longer than 300 days, That was the 391 days between Justice Abe Fortas's resignation in 1969 and Justice Harry Blackmun's placement on the court in 1970. That extraordinarily long vacancy was the result of two factors. First, it took President Nixon three months to make a nomination because his first choice declined the offer. Second, the first two nominees were advocates of racial segregation and were rejected by the Senate.

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies

 

[Iceprincess12]

So, in addition to everything else this election year, we get to have a fight over a new Supreme Court Justice.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20160213/07e0b2be-f462-4fac-b2a5-d2ca49126489

This was already posted in the gb with 100+ responses...originality is overrated isn't it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Only once for that long since the Civil War and the average is less than two months for a replacement.http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies

Yea but Obama is a Kenyan Communist soooo......

 

[about_average]

Yea but Obama is a Kenyan Communist soooo......

Duh, of course.

 

[sr71plt]

This was already posted in the gb with 100+ responses...originality is overrated isn't it?

So what? It's a political issue and this is the political forum--and not all of us are so bored and looking for the juvenile and snotty to spend a lot of time reading the GB and certainly don't expect to find substantive discussions there.

 

[Eyereadtoo]

Agree 100%. Obama will nominate someone, but the GOP will block them and we'll be stuck with 8 for a while. Not the first time.

May we all live in interesting times. This election year certainly seems to qualify.

Still not sure who this motivates more:

Dems who want to see a liberal on the court.

Reps who want to see another conservative.

RBG is barely hanging on.....wow!

Honestly I'll believe that when I see it. RINO's like Mitch McConnell and John McCain will go along with the POTUS to get along. Watch and see if Obama doesn't nominate an uber-liberal judge and the aforementioned M & M boys vote to okay him/her/it.

 

[Tigersman]

Honestly I'll believe that when I see it. RINO's like Mitch McConnell and John McCain will go along with the POTUS to get along. Watch and see if Obama doesn't nominate an uber-liberal judge and the aforementioned M & M boys vote to okay him/her/it.

THe only way to get a new nominee confirmed this year is to abolish Congress in its entirety.

 

[sr71plt]

I think he can find someone who will look so reasonable (Obama isn't the flaming liberal his detractors like to paint him as) that the Republicans will find themselves embarrassed not to accept eventually--especially if a Democrat wins the presidential election. He's done that twice already. It can't be lost to the Republicans in Congress that much of what's happening on their side of the presidential candidate list is a rejection of them in Congress by the voters. They have to avoid losing the majority in Congress as well. I can see Obama using the appointment to keep their unreasonable recalcitrance in front of the eyes of the voters if they don't accept a moderate who hasn't made wild left-side rulings.

I think Bush was dead on not to climb on "can't nominate" bandwagon. He, at least, is looking ahead to what a president's rights/responsibilities are.

 

[Jose_Rick]

Probably the same thing.. with either a Dem senate or a split senate you'd still get the same results..

The last time something similar happened was during the last year of Reagan's second term. The dem controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy 97-0.

So no, not the same thing at all.

 

[mark_j]

The last time something similar happened was during the last year of Reagan's second term. The dem controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy 97-0.

So no, not the same thing at all.

So? Reagan was almost 30 years ago. The country and congressional politics were different back then.. The comparison from then to the current cluster fuck is rather pointless..

 

[sr71plt]

Where I part ways is the republican analysis. If recalcitrance was a hindrance to the GOP in voters minds, they wouldn't have had the overwhelming electoral success they've enjoyed under Obama.

That was two years ago. What we're seeing now in the strength of the Trump and Carson bids is total rejection by a large segment of the voting populace of anything connected with Congress--with the knowledge that the Republicans control Congress.

 

[sr71plt]

As I noted elsewhere, I agree with the superdelegate system. These are the folks who have to actually do the work to bring in votes in the general election and they are the knowledgeable folks on electability--their strength steadies the boat. If the Republicans had that, favoring the most electable candidate, Bush, a lot of the bloodletting that the Democrats will find very useful in the general election would be muted. The party nominations are still party business, being conducted by folks who are going to have to do the bulk of the work to get a party nominee elected. If Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, it will be because the superdelegates change their mind on who is the most electable and then they'll work for him in the election. If he can't pull most of them over, he won't have the party support to win anyway.

 

[sr71plt]

We are not a democracy. We are a representative democracy. Pure democracy is chaos, especially in the hands of those who won't bother either to vote or to objectively research the issues. The American people--and those on this forum as well--prove daily that they aren't knowledgeable and responsible enough for democracy. They (and many on this forum) don't have a clue would organized government does for them and requires to have to function well. We have a better chance not blowing ourselves up by sticking with a representative democracy, which is reflected in the Democratic Party's superdelegate system that I've spelled out more than once here on the forum and, typically, only gotten empty, dogmatic one-liners back.

One again, the parties are not something owned by all of the people. They can nominate a Cocker Spaniel in a closed backroom if they want to. We're lucky they give public access to the extent that they do. They certainly aren't doing this for a knowledgeable public.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think he can find someone who will look so reasonable (Obama isn't the flaming liberal his detractors like to paint him as) that the Republicans will find themselves embarrassed not to accept eventually--especially if a Democrat wins the presidential election. He's done that twice already. It can't be lost to the Republicans in Congress that much of what's happening on their side of the presidential candidate list is a rejection of them in Congress by the voters. They have to avoid losing the majority in Congress as well. I can see Obama using the appointment to keep their unreasonable recalcitrance in front of the eyes of the voters if they don't accept a moderate who hasn't made wild left-side rulings.

I think Bush was dead on not to climb on "can't nominate" bandwagon. He, at least, is looking ahead to what a president's rights/responsibilities are.

There's some game theory going on with the decision on whether or not to give Obama a hearing, because the Senate Republicans sure are gambling that their guy will win the election.

Because what happens if Hillary wins in November, and there's still an open Court seat?

1. There will probably be fewer Republicans in the Senate, and there's an outside chance they won't control the Senate at all.

2. Hillary will probably have more leeway than Obama to nominate a true liberal, because it will be politically impossible to stonewall her for a full four years.

3. And related to that, having come out so forcefully for the idea that the election will be a referendum on who America wants making this Court pick, it will look awfully hypocritical to then come out against whoever she nominates.


So it's not a slam dunk that denying Obama is the smart move, even though I suspect they won't be able to help themselves.

 

[ReadyMike]

I would expect President Obama to carefully consider a nomination until after the Super Tuesday primaries.

If things go as expected and Secretary Clinton is pushing toward the nomination, I'd look for a woman to be nominated (perhaps AG Loretta Lynch or DC Circuit judge Patrica Millett, Donald Trump's sister is a judge on the 3rd Circuit that might be fun). If the Senate stalls confirmation, then accusations of "war on women" would fly. Justified or not, such accusations would presumably hurt the GOP with women voters.

If Senator Sanders continues his strong performance in the primaries, the President could nominate an African American or Hispanic man or woman. Delay in confirmation could be used in the same way to energize those traditional parts of the Democrat's base that Senator Sanders seems to be failing to reach.

Just my thoughts.

 

[sr71plt]

Any representative republic rests on the belief (by the uninformed voter) that their vote matters. That the person they vote for (if they win) will represent them. You and I simply disagree that the super delegates represent that system.

Yep, we disagree, because what you describe is precisely why they have the superdelegate system.

I trust you aren't another one who doesn't realize that the superdelegates have no commitment to hold to their original declaration.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So? Reagan was almost 30 years ago. The country and congressional politics were different back then.. The comparison from then to the current cluster fuck is rather pointless..

Only because it's pointing out what a complete fucking twat McConnell is.

 

[JackLuis]

Conspiracy kooks shift into overdrive after learning Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over head

Even before My San Antonio reported that lodge owner John Poindexter said, “We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,” people began speculating online that Scalia had been murdered.

Leading the list of reasons was a backlog of cases involving abortion, affirmative actions, unions and the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court that could stall out with the loss of the court’s most conservative justice.

No discussion of conspiracy theories in America can begin without first checking in with Alex Jones of Infowars, who immediately posted a “emergency transmission” on his Facebook page Saturday night after news of Scalia’s death was announced.

Bush AG Alberto Gonzales: ‘No question’ Obama has ‘obligation’ to fill Supreme Court vacancy

“I know there’s a big debate going on right now about whether or not Obama should nominate someone,” Gonzales told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday. “From my perspective having worked at the White House and the Dept. of Justice, there’s just no question in my mind that as president of the United States, you have an obligation to fill a vacancy.”

“I suspect President Obama is going to do his job,” he continued. “And after he does his job and nominating a hopefully qualified individual, the Senate will do its job eventually on its own calendar.”

“The bottom line from my perspective, is the president has to do his job in nominating a qualified individual and then the Senate does it’s job in assessing whether or not this person is qualified for a lifetime appointment on the court based upon experience, based upon ideology and based upon integrity.”

That ought to keep Cruz busy filibustering whoever Obama nominates. The down side is someone will have to listen to him for 76 hours!