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...
"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."
Orrin Hatch! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!Originally Posted by Ma'ake
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
This is going to be interesting to watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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
Maybe 40 years ago.
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
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.
Last edited by concerned; 02-13-2016 at 07:18 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).
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
Last edited by LA Ute; 02-13-2016 at 07:34 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.
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?
Last edited by concerned; 02-13-2016 at 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!
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
“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
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
He won't do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I thank it would be HILARIOUS if Obama nominated Vaughn Walker.
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.
Last edited by concerned; 02-13-2016 at 09:36 PM.
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.
Most likely what it means is they wont take cert in any controversial ie., significant cases. They will defer those for two terms.
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.
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.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote