PDA

View Full Version : The official "Good bye Justice Scalia, hello chaos" thread



Ma'ake
02-13-2016, 05:09 PM
Scalia had a great run, almost 30 years, longest serving Supreme Court Justice.

While he's still cooling down to room temperature, Mitch McConnell said Obama shouldn't appoint Scalia's replacement, and Lindsey Graham suggested Obama might have success appointing Orrin Hatch.

Here we go...

NorthwestUteFan
02-13-2016, 06:18 PM
"Thanks for the idea, Sen Graham and Sen McConnell. I think I want to get soon-to-be President-Elect Clinton's advice on whom to select."

Sullyute
02-13-2016, 06:31 PM
Scalia had a great run, almost 30 years, longest serving Supreme Court Justice.

While he's still cooling down to room temperature, Mitch McConnell said Obama shouldn't appoint Scalia's replacement, and Lindsey Graham suggested Obama might have success appointing Orrin Hatch.

Here we go...

Orrin Hatch! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 06:42 PM
This is going to be interesting to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Diehard Ute
02-13-2016, 06:48 PM
Funny how the constitution is the most important thing....until it's not in line with what the people who say that want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NorthwestUteFan
02-13-2016, 06:52 PM
Orrin Hatch! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Maybe 40 years ago.

concerned
02-13-2016, 06:52 PM
This is going to be interesting to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is going to be front and center this fall. If Obama nomiminates a relatively moderate black or hipanic and the Senate blocks it. What will that do to the election calculus

Ma'ake
02-13-2016, 06:56 PM
The Republican reaction, so far, is not too wise, it seems to me.

Obama just said he will fulfill his Constitutional duty to appoint a successor, and he expects Congress (the Senate) to likewise fulfill its Constitutional duty to vote on the nominee, in a timely manner.

Practically, if the court has been mostly split on many opinions, with Kennedy being the swing vote, Republicans will be at a disadvantage even if there are only 8 justices, and if there are cases that come down to a 4-4 vote, how would this be in any way considered a good thing, for our nation?

concerned
02-13-2016, 07:11 PM
The Republican reaction, so far, is not too wise, it seems to me.

Obama just said he will fulfill his Constitutional duty to appoint a successor, and he expects Congress (the Senate) to likewise fulfill its Constitutional duty to vote on the nominee, in a timely manner.

Practically, if the court has been mostly split on many opinions, with Kennedy being the swing vote, Republicans will be at a disadvantage even if there are only 8 justices, and if there are cases that come down to a 4-4 vote, how would this be in any way considered a good thing, for our nation?

And if you wait for a new pres, that means no majority the rest of this term and perhaps all of next term--potentially two terms of downtime and inertia.

Scratch
02-13-2016, 07:27 PM
If I'm Obama I nominate an older, moderate minority who I'm confident will retire when a Democrat is in office. Make the Republicans look as petty as possible.

If I'm the Republicans then I'm busy fabricating evidence showing Scalia was assassinated (poisoned) and as a result a conservative judge must replace him, otherwise it will be setting a dangerous precedent encouraging assassination of justices when the opposite party controls the presidency. (I'm just kidding about fabricating evidence, although I've always been very surprised that we haven't seen supreme court justices assassinated before; if an extremist is looking to really affect change in the country that's the fastest way to do it. Much more effective than assassinating a president who will just be replaced by his VP).

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 07:32 PM
Rubio said a lame duck president hasn't appointed a SCOTUS justice in 80 years. Is that true? If he meant a lame duck during an election year, that sounds plausible. The debate will line up along partisan lines. Liberals (e.g., just about everyone who's responded in this thread) want Obama to appoint the next justice. Conservatives like me want to hold out for a possible Republican president who would likely appoint a conservative.

Both sides have a principled position. You've already articulated the Democrats' argument. The GOP argument (which Democrats would be making if the positions were reversed) is also principled: In this election-year situation the USA's voters should have input into the decision via the ballot box.

Fire away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

concerned
02-13-2016, 07:43 PM
The voters had input at the ballot box thru every prior election. You can't shut down govt the last year of a president term. What if the v p or a cabinetember died? You wouldn't tell the majority in Congress not to appoint a new speaker if ryan died.

concerned
02-13-2016, 08:05 PM
Rejecting a nominee as unworthy is completely different from saying the pres has no right to appoint during his last year of course. What if Scalia had died the day after Obama's second inaugural ?

Did the voters who voted for Obama in 2012 so that he could make the appointments to the sc understand that his power was good for 3 years only?

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:12 PM
To those who are urging a nomination ASAP: If an uncompromisingly conservative Republican president had fewer than 11 months to go, and Justice Kennedy died, with both houses of Congress with fairly narrow Democratic majorities, would you want that Republican president to nominate a justice who could change the Court's balance for years to come? Be honest, now!

concerned
02-13-2016, 08:32 PM
We can ask you the reverse too. Be honest.

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:41 PM
We can ask you the reverse too. Be honest.

Hey, I asked first! But I've already said I hope the GOP can stop an Obama nominee. He is who he is and he will try to get a solid liberal on the Court. I don't want to trade Scalia for someone like Eric Holder if there's a chance we can avoid that. Of course, maybe the Dems will win the presidency again and we'll get a liberal anyway.

If I were a Democrat I'd hope Obama can replace Scalia with a solid liberal. I don't blame any of you for feeling that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
02-13-2016, 08:44 PM
In this election-year situation the USA's voters should have input into the decision via the ballot box.



The process typically takes about 90s days or less. Lyndon Johnson had a "rule" to not have a President name justices, months before an election.

We're 11 months before the new President takes office, which would mean the Supremes operate with 8 justices for 14 months, presumably a number of 4-4 deadlocks that then automatically default to the decision of the lower court. (This would seem to alter the occasional decision to expedite cases directly to the Supremes)

Do Republicans accept a more moderate candidate now from Obama, and keep the SCOTUS as an institution more intact and less dysfunctional? Or do they get aggressive, turn down anyone Obama nominates, and risk an angry and motivated Hillary Clinton sending more stridently left candidates, in what would become a long term battle, further eroding confidence in the SCOTUS, in Congress, in the entire National government?

The ingredients for a Perfect Storm of Political collapse seem to all be out there... just lingering.

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:47 PM
The process typically takes about 90s days or less. Lyndon Johnson had a "rule" to not have a President name justices, months before an election.

We're 11 months before the new President takes office, which would mean the Supremes operate with 8 justices for 14 months, presumably a number of 4-4 deadlocks that then automatically default to the decision of the lower court. (This would seem to alter the occasional decision to expedite cases directly to the Supremes)

Do Republicans accept a more moderate candidate now from Obama, and keep the SCOTUS as an institution more intact and less dysfunctional? Or do they get aggressive, turn down anyone Obama nominates, and risk an angry and motivated Hillary Clinton sending more stridently left candidates, in what would become a long term battle, further eroding confidence in the SCOTUS, in Congress, in the entire National government?

The ingredients for a Perfect Storm of Political collapse seem to all be out there... just lingering.

Fair enough. But what should Obama do? Nominate whomever he wants? Or try to find more of a consensus nominee? Even if he appoints a centrist he's changed the Court leftward for a long time to come. Does he have it in him to do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:49 PM
I think he's saying you should honestly admit that in reverse circumstances, you would be the one pretending to be disgusted at the idea of leaving the court at 8 for a long time.

Yep. Probably true. That's what I've been saying. Everyone is approaching this from their own political perspective. There are principled arguments on both sides and both sides here are making them, depending on their politics.

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:55 PM
“Movement is not necessarily progress. More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly. Nobody — remember this — neither Hitler, nor Lenin, nor any despot you could name, ever came forward with a proposal that read, ‘Now, let’s create a really oppressive and evil society.’ Hitler said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to restore our national pride and civic order.’ And Lenin said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to assure a fair distribution of the goods of the world.’

“In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction.”

—Excerpted from Justice Antonin Scalia’s commencement address at Langley High School, in Virginia, where his granddaughter was graduating in June of 2010

http://nypost.com/2010/06/20/advice-for-a-new-grad/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 08:58 PM
Why would he do that? He's holding the cards here, and there's little incentive to compromise. One thing you don't want to do as a president is pick a justice who ends up switching parties. They talk about your mistake forever when you do that.

He won't do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NorthwestUteFan
02-13-2016, 09:17 PM
I thank it would be HILARIOUS if Obama nominated Vaughn Walker.

concerned
02-13-2016, 09:33 PM
Hey, I asked first! But I've already said I hope the GOP can stop an Obama nominee. He is who he is and he will try to get a solid liberal on the Court. I don't want to trade Scalia for someone like Eric Holder if there's a chance we can avoid that. Of course, maybe the Dems will win the presidency again and we'll get a liberal anyway.

If I were a Democrat I'd hope Obama can replace Scalia with a solid liberal. I don't blame any of you for feeling that way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If the situation were reversed, the president gets to appoint. That is what he is elected to do. And you cant leave the Supreme Court with 8 justices for a year and a half.

BTW, what make you guys try to get around the constitutional authority of the president to appoint is the fact that Scalia died. The lion of the conservative wing of the court. If Ginsburg had died, and the appt were merely preserving teh sttus quo, you wouldn't care 1/10 as much.

concerned
02-13-2016, 09:35 PM
Yep. Probably true. That's what I've been saying. Everyone is approaching this from their own political perspective. There are principled arguments on both sides and both sides here are making them, depending on their politics.
There are not principled arguments on both sides. One argument has to do with constitutional authority, the other has to do with political expediency and is result oriented.

BTW, the gymnastics meet tonight was great. we beat UW pretty handily. 9.95 on the last floor exercise.

concerned
02-13-2016, 09:39 PM
Wouldn't there be at least as many 5-3's as 4-4's? It will be a preview of many 6-3's to come. At any rate, they'll be just fine with 8. The bigger problem will not be with the court itself. It will be the two parties screaming at each other about the court.

Most likely what it means is they wont take cert in any controversial ie., significant cases. They will defer those for two terms.

Scratch
02-13-2016, 10:03 PM
Am I the only one who is shocked that Ginsburg didn't retire in the last year? She seems like she's playing with fire a little bit if the extremely unlikely occurs and a Republican wins the presidency.

concerned
02-13-2016, 10:07 PM
Am I the only one who is shocked that Ginsburg didn't retire in the last year? She seems like she's playing with fire a little bit if the extremely unlikely occurs and a Republican wins the presidency.

From what I read, it sounded like a lot of Washington insiders tried to nudge her toward retirement last year so that Obama could appoint her successor. She gave them the finger.

concerned
02-13-2016, 10:18 PM
Justice Kennedy was confirmed on February 3rd 1988, the last year of Reagan's presidency, although he was nominated in July of 87

LA Ute
02-13-2016, 10:30 PM
Justice Kennedy was confirmed on February 3rd 1988, the last year of Reagan's presidency, although he was nominated in July of 87

That was after the Borking, which accounts for the delay. (The Borking was considered a constitutionally noble act by the Dems. Today, if the GOP did the same thing, it would be a horrible abuse of the Constitution. ;)) But the nomination was not made in an election year, much less the final year of Reagan's presidency.

As for your principled argument, the president appoints SCOTUS justices "with the advice and consent of the Senate." This is a classic Constitutional battle, just like Bork's nomination was. No one's abusing anything. The Constitution allows for a circus, and this is going to be one.

concerned
02-13-2016, 10:32 PM
That was after the Borking, which accounts for the delay. (The Borking was considered a constitutionally noble act by the Dems. Today, if the GOP did the same thing, it would be a horrible abuse of the Constitution. ;)) But the nomination was not made in an election year, much less the final year of Reagan's presidency.

As for your principled argument, the president appoints SCOTUS justices "with the advice and consent of the Senate." This is a classic Constitutional battle, just like Bork's nomination was. No one's abusing anything. The Constitution allows for a circus, and this is going to be one.

The Senate advises and cosents. Nowhere does the Constitution say deny. To say the Senate won't consider any nominee because of the identity of the president is abuse.

Scratch
02-13-2016, 10:44 PM
The Senate advises and cosents. Nowhere does the Constitution say deny. To say the Senate won't consider any nominee because of the identity of the president is abuse.

Democrats were preparing to fight any nominee before Bork was even nominated. It was a replacement for Justice Powell, who was a moderate, and Democrats felt strongly that they needed to ensure Powell was replaced with a moderate. That was supposedly a noble effort at the time. That tune has changed a bit in the last 30 years.

concerned
02-13-2016, 11:04 PM
Democrats were preparing to fight any nominee before Bork was even nominated. It was a replacement for Justice Powell, who was a moderate, and Democrats felt strongly that they needed to ensure Powell was replaced with a moderate. That was supposedly a noble effort at the time. That tune has changed a bit in the last 30 years.

If you think I am going to defend that you are wrong. But they approved kennedy. The didn't continue to delay and refuse to appoint anyone until after the election. Doesn't make it right here. Are you saying that if Obama nominated a moderate senate should still refuse

Scratch
02-13-2016, 11:18 PM
If you think I am going to defend that you are wrong. But they approved kennedy. The didn't continue to delay and refuse to appoint anyone until after the election. Doesn't make it right here. Are you saying that if Obama nominated a moderate senate should still refuse

Nope, if he nominates a moderate the Senate should approve, both because it's the right thing to do on principle, and also because it would be politically expedient.

LA Ute
02-14-2016, 07:55 AM
The Senate advises and cosents. Nowhere does the Constitution say deny. To say the Senate won't consider any nominee because of the identity of the president is abuse.

A nominee can't be appointed without the consent of the Senate. I think this guy is right:


There is no modern precedent for a struggle over a nomination that resulted in a vacancy lasting as long as a year. But we all know that had one of the court’s liberals died in 2008, the Democratic majority in the Senate would never have confirmed anyone nominated by George W. Bush. That is the consequence of divided government in a presidential election year. The Democrats will try to paint the GOP Senators as obstructionists, but Republicans will be unmoved and even the most fair-minded independents and Democrats will understand that were the positions reversed, the Democrats would have done the same thing.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/2016-now-replacing-scalia/

concerned
02-14-2016, 08:08 AM
A nominee can't be appointed without the consent of the Senate. I think this guy is right:



https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/2016-now-replacing-scalia/

At least Scratch does not try to conflate constitutional principle with political expediency and try to pass off one as the other. You can't try to rationalize this by saying the electorate should have a voice in it and acknowledge there is no precedent for the Senate refusing to advise and consent any nominee at any time so long as one person is president.

LA Ute
02-14-2016, 08:23 AM
This article seems nonpartisan and contains some interesting history.


While vacancies have rarely arisen in presidential election years, there has been one presidential election year confirmation in the modern era, that of Justice Anthony Kennedy in February 1988. Justice Lewis Powell retired from the Court in June 1987. President Reagan first nominated Robert Bork to fill the vacancy in July 1987, but Bork was defeated in the Senate in October. President Reagan then nominated Douglas Ginsburg to fill the Powell seat, but then-Judge Ginsburg quickly withdrew after it was revealed that he had smoked marijuana as a law professor at Harvard in the 1970s. It is my understanding Judge Ginsburg’s withdrawal was prompted, in part, by a concern that a confirmation fight could prevent the seat from being filled before the 1988 election. President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy on November 30, 1987. Then-judge Kennedy was less controversial than either Bork or Ginsburg, and was confirmed in February 1988.
The Powell seat was vacant for seven months before the Senate confirmed his successor. This was not the longest vacancy in the modern era, however. When Justice Fortas stepped down in May 1969, it would be a full year (well, 363 days to be precise) before his successor was confirmed. One reason it took so long to fill the Fortas seat is because the Senate rejected President Nixon’s first two nominees for the seat — Clement Haynesworth and Harold Carswell — before confirming Harry Blackman. The Court did its work with only eight justices in the interim. (Also of note, the Court went several months with only seven justices in 1971 after Justices Harlan and Black stepped down that September. Their replacements were confirmed in December.)

Do you think the Democratic Senate under Tom Daschle would have confirmed a G.W. Bush nominee in 2008 if a liberal justice had died?

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 08:37 AM
Republicans appear ready to dig in their heels.

If Obama appoints somebody like Sri Srinivasan, whom he appointed in 2012 - and who was approved by both Rubio and Cruz - the Republicans will come out of this fight in far worse shape than they started.

Mitch McConnell's very visceral, personal disdain of Obama - which first became public on inauguration day, 2009, and is the reason why Joe Biden had to get involved in negotiations with Senate Republicans - carries significant risk of becoming the face of Republican opposition to seating a Supreme Court justice.

(I've met people like McConnell, who is from my wife's home state. I would bet $1 Million if he met me, then my wife, he would immediately have a highly negative opinion of me, sort of like BY's declaration that the penalty for a white man mixing his seed with the seed of Cain meant death on the spot.)

This opposition will reverberate throughout the growing demographic bases that naturally lean Democratic, and make Republicans look like the Klan, to the rest of the world.

In much the same way that Trump defies gravity because he's tapping into much deeper emotional identification people have with a group that feels like they're losing status, Republican opposition to Obama's pick, especially if it is a non-white nominee, will unite and invigorate support for the Democratic presidential candidate. It won't matter what the intellectual reasoning is - it will be seen as simple, unvarnished bigotry.

Republicans seem ready, willing and able to be their own worst enemy... again.

concerned
02-14-2016, 08:48 AM
This article seems nonpartisan and contains some interesting history.



Do you think the Democratic Senate under Tom Daschle would have confirmed a G.W. Bush nominee in 2008 if a liberal justice had died?[/FONT]

No, I presume they would not have. Maybe the candidate Obama would have campaigned on the ground they should wait until after the election.

Ma'ake is right--this is going to be a huge campaign issue--helps the establishment candidates because voters will realize that have to elect somebody who can make the appt. Will also bring the moral issues--abortion, women's rights, affirmative action, environmental regs and climate change, etc., front and center and give the morality voters a reason to vote. A huge GOTV tool. It will help push the Republicans into the corner of being the white, old persons party. It will hurt them in the swing states.

It will also affect republican senate incumbents on democratic states. This has to be the last issue they wanted raised.

BTW, I wonder what happens to cases where Scalia voted at conference, but an opinion had not yet been written or finalized. Does his vote still count? You can always change your mind and switch sides or join a dissent or write your own in an opinion; nothing is final until it is final, so does his vote at conference count?

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 08:55 AM
Do you think the Democratic Senate under Tom Daschle would have confirmed a G.W. Bush nominee in 2008 if a liberal justice had died?[/FONT]

Reagan went from Bork to Kennedy - the Senate moderated his choice. Obama would be a fool to nominate an unabashed liberal... unless the strategy is to let Republicans make themselves look bad in the run up to the elections.

Republicans wouldn't care as much if Kennedy keeled over, but because Scalia was really like two first round draft choices for them - he was basically like having Rush Limbaugh on the Supreme Court - there was hope and encouragement even in his dissenting opinions.

For Republicans, the underlying emotion is the only way Scalia could be replaced is by another Republican.

If Hillary defeated Trump in November (hypothetically), I could easily see the Republican strategy being to shoot down every nominee until a possible GOP president arrives in 2021. That would be the base sentiment a Republican Senate leader would have to overcome to get a Democratic justice seated.

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 09:11 AM
It is poison for Supreme Court Justices to get overtly involved in politics, but one possible outcome here is for Clarence Thomas to regain the ability to speak, and to join hands with Mia Love and try to counter a tsunami-like undertoe of racial undertones.

Trust me on this, it would have a very limited impact - ala Herman Cain, Ben Carson, etc - but it would give Republicans a foothold to argue from.

The overwhelming number of African Americans consider Clarence Thomas to be a traitor.

Republicans still need to purge the old guard, like Mitch McConnell, but just as Lincoln was a Republican, it's possible for things to look differently... in the future.

USS Utah
02-14-2016, 09:59 AM
If the Democratic convention [in Charleston, SC] was meeting in an irrational atmosphere, the reason is clear. During the last few years events themselves had been irrational; politics in America could no longer be wholly sane. Here and there, like flickers of angry light before a thunderstorm, there had been bursts of violence, and although political debate continued, the nearness of violence -- the reality of it, the mounting threat that it would monstrously grow and drown out all voices -- made the debaters shout more loudly and appeal more directly to emotions that made reasonable debate impossible. Men put special meaning in words and phrases so that what sounded good to one sounded evil to another, and certain slogans took on their own significance and became portentous, streaming in the heated air like banners against the sunset; and even the voices that called for moderation became immoderate. American politicians in 1860 could do almost anything on earth except sit down and take a reasoned and dispassionate view of their situation.

So Bruce Catton writes in The Coming Fury, volume one of his three volume history of the American Civil War. The Democratic convention which opened in Charleston in April 1860, would adjourn with the party split in two, and without a candidate nominated for president. The convention would reconvene two months later in Baltimore without those who had walked out in Charleston, and nominate Stephen A. Douglas, a moderate wholly unacceptable to the South because of the Freeport doctrine of popular sovereignty, which was that the people the new territories should be able to choose whether they wanted slavery or not.

The violence referred to are the battles in Kansas over whether that state should be a slave state or a free state, as well as John Brown's raid on Harper's ferry. While I don't think we have had violence on that scale here in America in recent years, there is no question that American politics has devolved into emotional appeals, debaters shouting more loudly, with special words and phrases sounding good to some and evil to others and slogans taking on their own significance. And, yes, even the voices calling for moderation are now becoming immoderate.

concerned
02-14-2016, 11:29 AM
Just read on SCOTUS blog that all of Scalia's votes in pending cases where an opinion has not been published are void and a nullity. When pblished, the opinions will say that Justice Scalia did not participate in the resolution of a case.

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 01:52 PM
The way Republicans - especially the GOP presidential candidates - came out so quickly and declared that Obama should not be allowed nominate anyone, two things seem apparent:

1. For better or worse, Donald Trump is the subconscious leader of Republicans, and his "never back down, if you're wrong, deny it, and double down on your strategy" way of doing things is being reflected by other Republicans, with the notable exception of John Kasich, who said he wished the politics hadn't jumped out so quickly.

2. The 50+% of the public that is not Republican or Trumpists will view Senate foot dragging as "justice denied", which could easily result in serious protests around the nation, seen as the GOP's last stab of Obama, which will be seen by many through the prism of race.

Hopefully this doesn't make the Bird Refuge liberation attempt look like a preschoolers' birthday party.

LA Ute
02-14-2016, 02:18 PM
This article seems nonpartisan and contains some interesting history.[/FONT]

I think I left out the Washington Post link:

On election year Supreme Court vacancies [UPDATED] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/on-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies/)

LA Ute
02-14-2016, 02:28 PM
Rubio on this controversy:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sen-marco-rubio-on-a-replacement-for-justice-antonin-scalia/

Applejack
02-14-2016, 05:07 PM
Shame on all of you!!! Talking about politics when a man is not even cold! For shame.

DrumNFeather
02-14-2016, 05:22 PM
Shame on all of you!!! Talking about politics when a man is not even cold! For shame.
Tell that to my Facebook feed!

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 06:46 PM
Rubio on this controversy:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sen-marco-rubio-on-a-replacement-for-justice-antonin-scalia/

Actually, Rubio makes a good point. Because both the Supreme Court and Appellate Court appointments have a lasting effect, it's really best for no appointments to take place in the last year of a presidency... which could be either the 4th year, or the 8th year.

For that matter, military actions, wars and major pieces of legislation should fall under the same guidelines, given their impact, which frequently exceeds the lifetimes of the people who pass those laws of obligate our nation to foreign occupations.

There could be the perception of military actions taken to intentionally burden an incoming administration, for political purposes, perhaps even sabotaging foreign relations with other nations. So, no military responses, no trade agreements - which, after all, have a remarkably long lifetime themselves - and since members of the House are essentially lame ducks in the second year of any given term, they should be prohibited from voting on or sponsoring bills (one way or the other). Same for 1/3 of the Senate, in election years.

After all, it turns out that many laws last longer than even Supreme Court justices, even the longest serving one, Antonin Scalia.

OK, disgust and sarcasm aside, I think most Americans of both parties would agree the Republic is progressively becoming more fragile.

Here's a surreal moment from political talk here in Bountiful among young people: My youngest son has a wide group of friends, including some Trump supporters. One of the Trump supporters is having a baby, with his girlfriend, who is half Mexican. When my son asked him how he was going to reconcile Trump's demonization of Mexicans with his child, the friend said their plan is to not disclose to the child that they're part Mexican.

Whew! That is some seriously stout cognitive dissonance, from a 21 year old.

Dwight Schr-Ute
02-14-2016, 08:44 PM
Here's a surreal moment from political talk here in Bountiful among young people: My youngest son has a wide group of friends, including some Trump supporters. One of the Trump supporters is having a baby, with his girlfriend, who is half Mexican. When my son asked him how he was going to reconcile Trump's demonization of Mexicans with his child, the friend said their plan is to not disclose to the child that they're part Mexican.


If they're as smart as they sound, hopefully they have a plan to not disclose that they're Trump supporters to the child, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
02-14-2016, 09:45 PM
With Rubio claiming that Obama should not be allowed to even *nominate* a replacement Justice, I'm assuming Rubio mis-spoke, and he (and others?) are not intending to literally silence Obama on declaring a nominee?

In a Constitutional Crisis scenario, I'm guessing Obama could sue the Senate - perhaps using a lower court likely to side with his position, so if it gets to the SCOTUS while it's 4-4, the lower court ruling prevails? I think that suit would go directly to the SCOTUS, which might rule 4-4, ie, a mistrial on whether the Senate is obligated to vote on judge appointments... within 300 days, or whatever. That wouldn't be the proudest moment for the SCOTUS, me thinks.

Republicans declaring that Obama has no authority to perform his constitutional duty is certainly a "win" for the Bundy / Patriot movement. Will we have Republican candidates calling on Obama to release the Bundys, to invigorate that part of the electorate that will go along with anything that poses problems for Obama and Democratic candidates? (In other words, why *wouldn't* Trump play that card?)

Will we have the next Patriot leader in that movement using GOP rhetoric as the justification for ripping up more grazing leases?

Rocker Ute
02-14-2016, 10:18 PM
Actually, Rubio makes a good point. Because both the Supreme Court and Appellate Court appointments have a lasting effect, it's really best for no appointments to take place in the last year of a presidency... which could be either the 4th year, or the 8th year.

For that matter, military actions, wars and major pieces of legislation should fall under the same guidelines, given their impact, which frequently exceeds the lifetimes of the people who pass those laws of obligate our nation to foreign occupations.

There could be the perception of military actions taken to intentionally burden an incoming administration, for political purposes, perhaps even sabotaging foreign relations with other nations. So, no military responses, no trade agreements - which, after all, have a remarkably long lifetime themselves - and since members of the House are essentially lame ducks in the second year of any given term, they should be prohibited from voting on or sponsoring bills (one way or the other). Same for 1/3 of the Senate, in election years.

After all, it turns out that many laws last longer than even Supreme Court justices, even the longest serving one, Antonin Scalia.

OK, disgust and sarcasm aside, I think most Americans of both parties would agree the Republic is progressively becoming more fragile.

Here's a surreal moment from political talk here in Bountiful among young people: My youngest son has a wide group of friends, including some Trump supporters. One of the Trump supporters is having a baby, with his girlfriend, who is half Mexican. When my son asked him how he was going to reconcile Trump's demonization of Mexicans with his child, the friend said their plan is to not disclose to the child that they're part Mexican.

Whew! That is some seriously stout cognitive dissonance, from a 21 year old.

This is the first confirmed case of someone I know meeting an actual Trump supporter. I thought they were all unicorns. Pictures or it didn't happen.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 07:09 AM
A Washington Post collection of Nino's greatest hits:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/10-of-antonin-scalias-quirkiest-and-most-scathing-quotes/

Ma'ake
02-15-2016, 08:57 AM
Just read some political analysis suggesting McConnell is OK risking losing the White House and seeing the Democrats re-take the Senate, as long as Obama is denied naming Scalia's replacement. (Seven GOP Senators are up for re-election this year, from states Obama won in 2012.)

Having a 4-4 SCOTUS for over a year might work out really well for Democrats, especially if Senate Republicans spend the next 10 months having to explain why they oppose a justice they approved 97-0, in 2013.

concerned
02-15-2016, 09:15 AM
Just read some political analysis suggesting McConnell is OK risking losing the White House and seeing the Democrats re-take the Senate, as long as Obama is denied naming Scalia's replacement. (Seven GOP Senators are up for re-election this year, from states Obama won in 2012.)

Having a 4-4 SCOTUS for over a year might work out really well for Democrats, especially if Senate Republicans spend the next 10 months having to explain why they oppose a justice they approved 97-0, in 2013.


It wont be just a year of 4-4 votes. Assuming a new president nominates a justice very early on--say early February, and the confirmation process takes 30-60 days, the new justice will have missed oral argument on most of the cases to be decided next term, and wont participate. (At least that is the way i assume it works.)

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 09:30 AM
Interesting perspectives and information here, from a conservative perspective:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/antonin-scalia-larger-than-life/article/2001085/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=20160214_TWS-blog-scalia-larger-life-4_facebook.com&utm_content=TWS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 09:32 AM
Ma'ake, I think the response is, it's one thing to approve a judge for the federal circuit courts and quite another to approve one to the SCOTUS. Example: Robert Bork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

concerned
02-15-2016, 09:50 AM
Ma'ake, I think the response is, it's one thing to approve a judge for the federal circuit courts and quite another to approve one to the SCOTUS. Example: Robert Bork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bork was treated extremely poorly (and should have been confirmed), but the analogy doesn't work. The Senate didn't refuse to consider any nominee so long as Reagan was president, and ultimately approved his nominee in an election year (as you know).

NorthwestUteFan
02-15-2016, 12:17 PM
Just read some political analysis suggesting McConnell is OK risking losing the White House and seeing the Democrats re-take the Senate, as long as Obama is denied naming Scalia's replacement. (Seven GOP Senators are up for re-election this year, from states Obama won in 2012.)

Having a 4-4 SCOTUS for over a year might work out really well for Democrats, especially if Senate Republicans spend the next 10 months having to explain why they oppose a justice they approved 97-0, in 2013.

You make two great points. The Dems need to pick up 4 seats to regain the Senate, and 7 of the Republican senators are in States that Hilary will probably carry. Even if she were to somehow ultimately lose, it is possible to pick up the seat anyhow. (Ohio is likely, and New Hampshire is definitely in play).

And Purple State Republicans will have a difficult time justifying any kind of obstruction or delay.

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 01:19 PM
Pretty good Onion satire on the right's fears as to whom Obama will nominate:

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia (http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361)

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 01:27 PM
Bork was treated extremely poorly (and should have been confirmed), but the analogy doesn't work. The Senate didn't refuse to consider any nominee so long as Reagan was president, and ultimately approved his nominee in an election year (as you know).

:) You know that the extraordinary Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy series of nominations is distinct from this situation. Also, I doubt anyone would say with a straight face that if Lewis Powell had died in February 1988 that the Democratic-controlled Senate would have let Reagan appoint anyone but another moderate swing-voter. (That's what they ended up with when they finally got Kennedy on Reagan's third try.)

concerned
02-15-2016, 01:34 PM
:) You know that the extraordinary Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy series of nominations is distinct from this situation. Also, I doubt anyone would say with a straight face that if Lewis Powell had died in February 1988 that the Democratic-controlled Senate would have let Reagan appoint anyone but another moderate swing-voter. (That's what they ended up with when they finally got Kennedy on Reagan's third try.)


Ok, I concede. I don't think there is any doubt that if Scalia had died a year ago, and the Senate had rejected two earlier nominees comparable to Bork and Ginsberg, that McConnell, Cruz, Rubio et al would see this completely differently and would approve a consensus nominee forthwith.

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 01:47 PM
Ok, I concede. I don't think there is any doubt that if Scalia had died a year ago, and the Senate had rejected two earlier nominees comparable to Bork and Ginsberg, that McConnell, Cruz, Rubio et al would see this completely differently and would approve a consensus nominee forthwith.

NOW you're beginning to see things clearly! ;)

This is going to be epic. FWIW, I am skeptical that the Senate Republicans will stick by their guns. I think it's 50-50 that they will cave.

concerned
02-15-2016, 01:52 PM
NOW you're beginning to see things clearly! ;)

This is going to be epic. FWIW, I am skeptical that the Senate Republicans will stick by their guns. I think it's 50-50 that they will cave.

i don't think that mcConnell et al can cave.

i laughed at this; it is a pretty trenchant analysis of what is going to happen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/15/the_supreme_court_vacancy_explained_in_250_words_1 29666.html

Rocker Ute
02-15-2016, 01:57 PM
NOW you're beginning to see things clearly! ;)

This is going to be epic. FWIW, I am skeptical that the Senate Republicans will stick by their guns. I think it's 50-50 that they will cave.

Political expediency will always win over principal these days. Elected officials never stop running for the next term.

The biggest caveat is this, these people will 'stick to their guns' at great expense to their party and even control of the senate if it personally assures their reelection.

For example I fully expect Hatch and Lee to fight any nomination tooth and nail as it will represent the standing up to the Evil Obama and assure another six years. Well Hatch might be different if he truly does intend to retire after his term.

But look at the electorate of the other R senators and see where they sit and you'll have your answer on whether they'll cave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 02:08 PM
This is a view from the right, responding to the WaPo piece Ma'ake referred to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431353/supreme-court-fight-republican-party-future-stake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 02:13 PM
Like I said, this is going to be epic. The Senate Democrats have sown many seeds and it will be interesting to see what fruit they bear.

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

concerned
02-15-2016, 02:26 PM
Like I said, this is going to be epic. The Senate Democrats have sown many seeds and it will be interesting to see what fruit they bear.

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw an article earlier today (since I am work and bored out of my mind), where numerous Senate Republicans made the same comments in reverse during 2004 about how there was no such thing as the Strom Thurmand rule, and the Senate should carry through on all of George W.s judicial appointments during the 4th year of his term.

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 02:52 PM
I saw an article earlier today (since I am work and bored out of my mind), where numerous Senate Republicans made the same comments in reverse during 2004 about how there was no such thing as the Strom Thurmand rule, and the Senate should carry through on all of George W.s judicial appointments during the 4th year of his term.

The whole country is about to get a lesson in politics, the Constitution, and the separation of powers. The old saying about law and sausage will be proven true once again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 04:28 PM
ABC News This Week on this and related subjects:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/kristol-discusses-process-for-replacing-scalia-on-this-week/article/2001090/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=20160215_TWS-blog-kristol-this-week-scotus-3_facebook.com&utm_content=TWS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

scottie
02-15-2016, 05:22 PM
The whole country is about to get a lesson in politics, the Constitution, and the separation of powers. The old saying about law and sausage will be proven true once again.

Which is exactly what many, many people in my Facebook feed need.

LA Ute
02-15-2016, 05:34 PM
Which is exactly what many, many people in my Facebook feed need.

It isn't pretty to most observers but I think it's beautiful, even if it frustrates me. Checks and balances are a pain in the rear, and I've watched them work in ways that both pleased me and drove me nuts. I think that means it works pretty well.

Here's a factoid (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087):


[T]he Senate has confirmed only 124 of 160 presidential Supreme Court nominations, and of the 36 unsuccessful nominees fully 25 received no up-or-down vote.

I wonder what lovely political stories are behind all those unsuccessful nominees.

Mormon Red Death
02-15-2016, 06:45 PM
The guy I consider one of the smartest persons in America (Gregg Easterbrooke of TMQ) made a great suggestion. Term limits on Supreme Court Justices:

TMQ's Tweets
If S.Court terms limited to 10 years there would not be political hysteria over every pick. Plus Court need not be old and out of touch

First 9 Supreme Court justices averaged 9 years. Most recent 9 averaged 30 years. Framers didn't know how longevity would increase....

...and would be outraged that Court appointment now means decades of unchecked power. Solution: Const. amendment limiting term to 10 years

1947 amendment limiting president to 8 years widely viewed (even by FDR fans) as healthy for democracy. Supreme limit would be same



Read more here (http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/05/19/the-founding-fathers-v-the-supreme-court/)

Sullyute
02-15-2016, 07:16 PM
Same goes for congress and every other political position. There's no reason that holding office should be a career for anyone.

Amen brother!!!

NorthwestUteFan
02-15-2016, 07:41 PM
Amen brother!!!
Orrin Hatch agreed with you, at one time.

Diehard Ute
02-15-2016, 07:45 PM
Orrin Hatch agreed with you, at one time.

Yup. He swore he'd never be a career politician




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
02-15-2016, 09:25 PM
Ma'ake, I think the response is, it's one thing to approve a judge for the federal circuit courts and quite another to approve one to the SCOTUS. Example: Robert Bork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is clear, but Rubio said the standard also applied to appellate nominees, too. He was referring to election year seating, but the scrutiny difference between the SCOTUS level and appellate level in votes cast should also be apparent in the election year seating, it seems to me.

There isn't some manual of formulas on how much scrutiny to be applied to an appellate seat 7 months before a presidential election where the President's party has 8 Senators up for re-election, for example. There is precedent, and LBJ's "rule' about appointments within a few months of election day, but this strong of a statement by Republicans on the day Scalia died exposes their stance as 95% politics, 5% based on informal rules.

If Obama nominates a vetted candidate, like Sri Srinivasan within two weeks, the pressure will mount, especially on GOP Senators at risk this year, and therefore on McConnell.

In the new calculus of GOP internal politics, is it better to not back down and lose the Senate and the White House, or capitulate on a decent justice and keep hitting all the other issues, but face the wrath of the Tea Partiers?

Applejack
02-16-2016, 05:09 AM
The guy I consider one of the smartest persons in America (Gregg Easterbrooke of TMQ) made a great suggestion. Term limits on Supreme Court Justices:

TMQ's Tweets

Read more here (http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/05/19/the-founding-fathers-v-the-supreme-court/)




This idea has been floating around for a while. While it makes sense and I think is a smart idea, there are definitely some downsides. For example, if you have some job after the Court, you are more likely to write decisions that favor the industry you plan on working in. In fact, you can imagine worse than bias towards industry: "signing bonuses" that are in fact payment for decisions. I'm not sure those concerns are enough to scare me enough to not support this plan, but they are legitimate concerns.

NorthwestUteFan
02-16-2016, 08:29 AM
Term limits make sense if we also give the former judge/congressman/senator/president $1M/yr for the rest of their lives and make it illegal for them to do any activities related to lobbying.

NorthwestUteFan
02-16-2016, 11:24 AM
Nuts to that. We've got laws against corruption. Let's let the law handle it the best it can. If anything, these people should be paid less while in office. Why give people an incentive beyond being a public servant?
LOL. There is a revolving door from Congress to K Street, and newly retired/replaced Congresscritters are in high demand as lobbyists because they already know all of the people involved. It is almost like having a Congressman/Senator on the payroll.

I want to bribe them to leave Washington completely. It will be far cheaper in the long run.

NorthwestUteFan
02-16-2016, 11:29 AM
Mitch McConnell has to know that his best leverage will be when he allows a nominee to come up for debate and for a vote.

Otherwise there is a decent chance that Amy Schumer's cousin (Chuck) could very well be the Senate Majority Leader in 12 months, and that he could modify Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' of confirmations with a simple majority to include SCOTUS.

LA Ute
02-16-2016, 11:43 AM
No one here is doing this but a lot of my Facebook friends are.
(http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-14/justice-scalia-s-death-brings-out-the-worst-in-opponents)
Scalia's Grave-Dancers Deserve a Harsh Verdict (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-14/justice-scalia-s-death-brings-out-the-worst-in-opponents)

Diehard Ute
02-16-2016, 04:30 PM
Term limits make sense if we also give the former judge/congressman/senator/president $1M/yr for the rest of their lives and make it illegal for them to do any activities related to lobbying.

Not sure where you're going with this

All of these people are already very well off, and make good money in office




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
02-16-2016, 08:57 PM
Exploring the 4-4 SCOTUS scenario a bit further...

In cases that get deadlocked, the lower court's decision stands. This will put pressure on the customary practice of bi-partisan support for lower court candidates for at least a couple of reasons:

1. The chances are higher today than they were on Friday that lower court judges will issue verdicts that essentially have Supreme Court-level impact.

2. The political cost of approving a judge at a lower level, then opposing him at the higher level is not insignificant. Democrats will repeatedly hammer Senate Republicans who joined in approving Sri Srinivasan, 97-0. Democrats and Republicans will learn that supporting lower level appointments could end up being quite "expensive", politically, regardless of qualifications, tradition, etc.

In the event SCOTUS takes on a case where divergent rulings exist in different districts, the risk is elevated that SCOTUS is unable to resolve the issue, a hung jury. Given the potential for upheaval in those instances, does SCOTUS have the option to hear a case, but not issue a decision? Ie, a "Supreme Punt"?

Similarly, I think there could be more intensive pressure on SCOTUS to avoid cases involving multiple districts that could potentially make the court look impotent.

Ordinarily, I think this issue would naturally settle down, cooler heads prevail, even if there is no new SCOTUS member until next March, or April. Certainly not the nation's finest hour, but it would simmer down.

But there's been a discernible rise in the level of rancor, just among the GOP Presidential candidates, with a corresponding decline in any kind of civility, statesmanship. The top 3 candidates are openly calling each other liars, the campaign is taking on the appearance of a grade school rumble at recess. If there was ever any question about people having an "inner child", these guys are filling up psychological textbook material.

But as the contentious campaign is listed as the reason to delay voting on Scalia's replacement, it's also increasingly likely the delay will *exacerbate* political hostilities. Trump as the front runner is bringing out "tough guy" behavior in others, as they seek to close the gap Trump has established. This rough and tumble way of operating could spread to the Democrats, if not between Sanders and Clinton, but certainly between Sanders/Clinton and the Republicans.

Don't apologize. Don't back down. Paint your opponent as badly as you can, make everything black-and-white, good vs evil. If we saw the Senate flip back to the Dems, and a President Trump (or Cruz or Rubio) in a year, why *wouldn't* a warrior Senate Majority leader want to exact revenge on Trump, ie, "let's put this nomination idea on the back burner".

"They dealt it out - they can handle it."

It's not inconceivable to think we could have a Trump executive, going against a firebrand Democratic Majority leader in the Senate, going blow to blow. "Fine! We can stay at 8! In fact, who is Ginsberg's physician? How long is she going to last? She needs to be out of there, and then we can stay at 7!"

Of course, all of this sky-is-falling rhetoric is a bit over the top, admittedly. But, who would have predicted this campaign season to this point, where "Reagan's Law" of not speaking ill of another Republican is not just ignored, it would be stunning to learn this informal rule was ever followed.

NorthwestUteFan
02-17-2016, 12:51 AM
Not sure where you're going with this

All of these people are already very well off, and make good money in office




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would bribe them to gtfo of DC forever.

LA Ute
02-17-2016, 03:29 PM
With the tables turned, Obama now 'regrets' his 2006 Alito filibuster (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/17/obama-now-regrets-his-2006-alito-filibuster-white-house-says/80514152/)

concerned
02-17-2016, 03:36 PM
With the tables turned, Obama now 'regrets' his 2006 Alito filibuster (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/17/obama-now-regrets-his-2006-alito-filibuster-white-house-says/80514152/)



I suspect you could write one of these articles about everybody in Washington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205?cps=gravity_2 425_-8169040293712236041

LA Ute
02-17-2016, 03:57 PM
I suspect you could write one of these articles about everybody in Washington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205?cps=gravity_2 425_-8169040293712236041

I suspect you are absolutely right!

NorthwestUteFan
02-17-2016, 04:53 PM
I suspect you could write one of these articles about everybody in Washington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205?cps=gravity_2 425_-8169040293712236041
Frankly I am more scared of a politician who can neither recognize nor admit when he/she was previously wrong.

Diehard Ute
02-17-2016, 05:29 PM
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3549490-155/hatch-a-sharp-critic-of-past

Hey you shouldn't do that....oh wait now that the shoe is on the other foot....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

concerned
02-18-2016, 07:01 AM
here is one more

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-antonin-scalia-219392

Ma'ake
02-18-2016, 10:37 AM
Hatch & Schumer: predictable hypocrites. They're politicians!

Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor, in his *first* term, THEN was re-elected. The public has approved Obama's judgement in selecting SCOTUS justices. And where is this unparalleled, contentious presidential campaign? On the GOP side. Why should the GOP's intra party mud wrestling impact the whole country? Very weak argument.

Here's where the escalation has occurred: McConnell said Obama shouldn't even *nominate* a SCOTUS justice. Someone put it succinctly: McConnell thinks Obama was only elected to 3/5 of a term.

Scratch
02-18-2016, 10:46 AM
Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor, in his *first* term, THEN was re-elected. The public has approved Obama's judgement in selecting SCOTUS justices. And where is this unparalleled, contentious presidential campaign? On the GOP side. Why should the GOP's intra party mud wrestling impact the whole country? Very weak argument.

I feel like both parties are having pretty competitive, contentious campaigns, and that while they are not actively campaigning against the other party, the polling and underlying rhetoric supports an argument that the upcoming election looks like it will be pretty contentious and competitive. Now, is that a reason to deprive a president of his right to appoint Justices? Probably not.


Here's where the escalation has occurred: McConnell said Obama shouldn't even *nominate* a SCOTUS justice. Someone put it succinctly: McConnell thinks Obama was only elected to 3/5 of a term.

I agree that it's absurd to say Obama shouldn't even nominate someone. The furthest the Republicans could even try to go would be to say that it's their job to vet and possibly reject nominees.

sancho
02-18-2016, 10:54 AM
Here's where the escalation has occurred: McConnell said Obama shouldn't even *nominate* a SCOTUS justice. Someone put it succinctly: McConnell thinks Obama was only elected to 3/5 of a term.

When I was a kid, all the presidential elections were blowouts. Now it seems like they are all very close. The nation is about 50/50 on these things. The Congress is close to 50/50. It would make sense for the supreme court to be 5-4 instead of 6-3. That's not how supreme court building works, but I can empathize with a desire for the court to reflect the opinions of the people.

Diehard Ute
02-18-2016, 11:42 AM
When I was a kid, all the presidential elections were blowouts. Now it seems like they are all very close. The nation is about 50/50 on these things. The Congress is close to 50/50. It would make sense for the supreme court to be 5-4 instead of 6-3. That's not how supreme court building works, but I can empathize with a desire for the court to reflect the opinions of the people.

Haha like politics represents the opinions of the people.

Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sancho
02-18-2016, 11:47 AM
Haha like politics represents the opinions of the people.

Really?

Hey, I said I know it doesn't work that way!

Diehard Ute
02-18-2016, 12:11 PM
Hey, I said I know it doesn't work that way!

Even the president isn't actually elected by the will of the people.

Of course then there's Utah where 70% of people in multiple polls say one thing and the legislature says we're wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NorthwestUteFan
02-18-2016, 01:09 PM
If you follow McConnell's logic, then Justice Kennedy should not have been nominated in Reagan's final year.

That means Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote in the Bush v. Gore decision to end the recount in Florida. which decision awarded the presidency to George Bush. Afterward George Bush appointed Roberts and Alito.

Therefore Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito should not be on the court.

McConnell's position when taken to its reasonable, logical conclusion, shows it's underlying patent absurdity.

Rocker Ute
02-18-2016, 01:30 PM
If you follow McConnell's logic, then Justice Kennedy should not have been nominated in Reagan's final year.

That means Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote in the Bush v. Gore decision to end the recount in Florida. which decision awarded the presidency to George Bush. Afterward George Bush appointed Roberts and Alito.

Therefore Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito should not be on the court.

McConnell's position when taken to its reasonable, logical conclusion, shows it's underlying patent absurdity.

You've got to admit that it is pretty funny they are calling it the 'Schumer Standard' though. Since there is precedent of both sides having stated similar strategies and opinions in the past, including the president, it is hard to get up in arms about any of this. Particularly because we know if the roles were reversed the left would be doing the exact same thing.

LA Ute
02-18-2016, 01:34 PM
:snack:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scratch
02-18-2016, 01:53 PM
If you follow McConnell's logic, then Justice Kennedy should not have been nominated in Reagan's final year.

That means Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote in the Bush v. Gore decision to end the recount in Florida. which decision awarded the presidency to George Bush. Afterward George Bush appointed Roberts and Alito.

Therefore Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito should not be on the court.

McConnell's position when taken to its reasonable, logical conclusion, shows it's underlying patent absurdity.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you follow McConnell's logic, Robert Bork would be on the SCOTUS and SC jurisprudence would look very, very different.

Scratch
02-18-2016, 01:57 PM
If you follow McConnell's logic, then Justice Kennedy should not have been nominated in Reagan's final year.



And by the way, Kennedy wasn't nominated in Reagan's final year. And by the way (again), it's very likely that even if Kennedy had not been appointed and the nomination had been put off that whoever Bush Sr. had nominated after replacing Reagan would have been much more palatable to conservatives than Kennedy has been. If you want to talk about conservative interests, the Republicans would have been much better off with Reagan's first nominee (Bork) or whoever Bush would have nominated had Kennedy not gone through.

NorthwestUteFan
02-18-2016, 02:24 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you follow McConnell's logic, Robert Bork would be on the SCOTUS and SC jurisprudence would look very, very different.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that.

NorthwestUteFan
02-18-2016, 03:17 PM
And since Robert Bork passed away in 2012, it would likely have been an Obama nominee in place of Kennedy joining the majority opinion in Obergefel and in Windsor.

Bork certainly would have gone along with Citizens United (Corporations are People Too), but he would likely have gone the other way from Kennedy on Lawrence v. Texas, and on the habeus corpus case for detainees at Gitmo, so both of those would have been decided the other way (against all human decency). The abortion cases in the early 90s would have gone the other way as well.

LA Ute
02-19-2016, 07:02 AM
"...this is all about raw power. When the Democrats had it, they used it."

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/republicans-win-nino-article-1.2536350


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Diehard Ute
02-19-2016, 08:54 AM
"...this is all about raw power. When the Democrats had it, they used it."

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/republicans-win-nino-article-1.2536350


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blah blah blah.

They're all wrong, regardless if they're right or left and you know it.

Using this idea that the people should have a say in this is nothing but PR. The people have no say in this, regardless of an election.

As you said yesterday your vote in California is meaningless. Mine in Utah, thanks to gerrymandering, is even more meaningless.

If all these rich blow hard elitists really wanted us to have a say (which they most certainly do not) they'd start by imploding the electoral college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sullyute
02-20-2016, 05:29 AM
Blah blah blah.

They're all wrong, regardless if they're right or left and you know it.

Using this idea that the people should have a say in this is nothing but PR. The people have no say in this, regardless of an election.

As you said yesterday your vote in California is meaningless. Mine in Utah, thanks to gerrymandering, is even more meaningless.

If all these rich blow hard elitists really wanted us to have a say (which they most certainly do not) they'd start by imploding the electoral college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Preach it, brother Diehard! Both parties are afraid of what would happen if the people had a real vote. I understand why it was set up 200 years ago, but in today's day and age it is a mockery. One person, one vote. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

NorthwestUteFan
02-20-2016, 09:21 AM
I don't disagree with the notion of eliminating the Electoral College and especially the Super Delegates, but which elections would have been different? Gore beat Bush but lost the Electoral College (thanks to Jeb, and a 5-4 SCOTUS).

Have any others won the Popular but lost on total votes?

USS Utah
02-20-2016, 12:04 PM
I don't disagree with the notion of eliminating the Electoral College and especially the Super Delegates, but which elections would have been different? Gore beat Bush but lost the Electoral College (thanks to Jeb, and a 5-4 SCOTUS).

Have any others won the Popular but lost on total votes?

Samuel J. Tilden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Diehard Ute
02-20-2016, 01:04 PM
I don't disagree with the notion of eliminating the Electoral College and especially the Super Delegates, but which elections would have been different? Gore beat Bush but lost the Electoral College (thanks to Jeb, and a 5-4 SCOTUS).

Have any others won the Popular but lost on total votes?

It may change the way being elected went.

As it is now, no one cares what any of the 3,000,000 people in Utah think. Because those electoral college votes have been decided since the pyramids were built


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sullyute
02-20-2016, 04:37 PM
I don't disagree with the notion of eliminating the Electoral College and especially the Super Delegates, but which elections would have been different? Gore beat Bush but lost the Electoral College (thanks to Jeb, and a 5-4 SCOTUS).

Have any others won the Popular but lost on total votes?

The only way to get a viable third party is to eliminate the electorial college. As it stands now it just takes votes from one party or the other but doesn't make a difference in the big picture. With the surge of candidates like Trump and Sanders shows me that the people want someone different in office that what either party is currently pimping.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

USS Utah
02-20-2016, 06:26 PM
Out of the last 10 presidential elections, Utah went for the eventual winner only 5 times.

While those in Utah might not feel that their vote matters in determining who wins the state, I could also see how some in Utah might feel that the states 6 electoral votes do not mean much either.

sancho
02-20-2016, 06:29 PM
Out of the last 10 presidential elections, Utah went for the eventual winner only 5 times.

While those in Utah might not feel that their vote matters in determining who wins the state, I could also see how some in Utah might feel that the states 6 electoral votes do not mean much either.

Hey, my swing state vote is up for sale if anyone wants to feel like their vote is more meaningful.

NorthwestUteFan
02-22-2016, 04:25 PM
I saw this amazing tweet over the weekend: "Scalia's wish was to be cremated, but tomorrow millions of women will get together to decide what is best for the body".

LA Ute
02-22-2016, 04:27 PM
I saw this amazing tweet over the weekend: "Scalia's wish was to be cremated, but tomorrow millions of women will get together to decide what is best for the body".

I was just asking myself what you guys would say I had this kind of fun when Justice Ginsburg dies.

NorthwestUteFan
02-22-2016, 04:37 PM
I was just asking myself what you guys would say I had this kind of fun when Justice Ginsburg dies.
Even you have to admit that was funny.

Rocker Ute
02-22-2016, 05:17 PM
I was just asking myself what you guys would say I had this kind of fun when Justice Ginsburg dies.

Bigot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Diehard Ute
02-22-2016, 05:24 PM
I was just asking myself what you guys would say I had this kind of fun when Justice Ginsburg dies.

Trump lover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-22-2016, 08:19 PM
The circus only gets more entertaining.

Grassley Holds Strong: ‘Biden Rules’ Support Blocking SCOTUS Nominee (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/22/grassley-holds-strong-biden-rules-support-blocking-scotus-nominee/)

LA Ute
03-14-2016, 11:02 AM
His 60 Minutes interview from a few years back:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/antonin-scalia-the-60-minutes-interview/?ftag=ACQ-07-10aab5g&vndid=1848611757&nan_pid=1848611757

NorthwestUteFan
03-16-2016, 09:57 PM
So the nominee Pres. Obama put forward was described by Orrin Hatch thusly: "Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man...he probably won't do that because this appointment is all about the election. So I'm pretty sure he'll name someone [the liberal Democratic base] wants".

Heh.

Diehard Ute
05-26-2016, 02:07 PM
And Orrin Hatch, via a D News screwup has been exposed for what he is

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/orrin-hatch-merrick-garland_us_57470db6e4b055bb117157e4?cps=gravity_24 25_-5005599851072125311&kvcommref=mostpopular


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rocker Ute
05-26-2016, 02:52 PM
And Orrin Hatch, via a D News screwup has been exposed for what he is

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/orrin-hatch-merrick-garland_us_57470db6e4b055bb117157e4?cps=gravity_24 25_-5005599851072125311&kvcommref=mostpopular


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Repubs really screwed this one up when they had the perfect opportunity. After threatening to stonewall a nominee they get one that by all measures is a reasonable option (and certainly a man who doesn't deserve such boorish treatment). They easily could have pivoted at that point and claimed victory by saying they felt they needed to stonewall the White House to get a reasonable nominee and that worked. Instead they continue to look like idiots.

But this little gaffe you've cited is telling indeed. For a guy who initially ran on the platform that the old dogs should get out of office, he sure seems able to hold onto his beloved position.

sancho
05-26-2016, 07:57 PM
And Orrin Hatch, via a D News screwup has been exposed for what he is


I love this story. Exposes not only that carpetbagger Hatch but is a great example of how politics in general operate. There must be a million politicians who read this and thought "Phew, that could have been me!"

LA Ute
05-26-2016, 11:23 PM
I love this story. Exposes not only that carpetbagger Hatch but is a great example of how politics in general operate. There must be a million politicians who read this and thought "Phew, that could have been me!"

Carpetbagger? The man has spent 10 of his 82 years living in Utah. (Only seven of those years were spent as a working adult, prior to his first run for the Senate.) If that doesn't make him a real Utahn I don't know what does. 😉

Rocker Ute
05-27-2016, 08:10 AM
Carpetbagger? The man has spent 10 of his 82 years living in Utah. (Only seven of those years were spent as a working adult, prior to his first run for the Senate.) If that doesn't make him a real Utahn I don't know what does. 

My dad served on an LDS high council with Brother Orrin. Doesn't hold a high opinion of him. Something about, "Last person to show up, first person to take credit..." A very politician-like sort of a thing it would seem.