The official "Good bye Justice Scalia, hello chaos" thread

[concerned]

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]

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]

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/art...ds_129666.html

[Rocker Ute]

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]

This is a view from the right, responding to the WaPo piece Ma'ake referred to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...y-future-stake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

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-governm...for-18-months/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

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-governm...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]

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]

ABC News This Week on this and related subjects:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/kristo...tm_content=TWS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottie]

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]

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:

[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]

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

[Sullyute]

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]

Amen brother!!!

Orrin Hatch agreed with you, at one time.

[Diehard Ute]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

No one here is doing this but a lot of my Facebook friends are.

Scalia's Grave-Dancers Deserve a Harsh Verdict

[Diehard Ute]

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]

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]

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]

With the tables turned, Obama now 'regrets' his 2006 Alito filibuster

[concerned]

With the tables turned, Obama now 'regrets' his 2006 Alito filibuster

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...40293712236041

[LA Ute]

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...40293712236041

I suspect you are absolutely right!

[NorthwestUteFan]

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...40293712236041

Frankly I am more scared of a politician who can neither recognize nor admit when he/she was previously wrong.

[Diehard Ute]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3549490-1...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]

here is one more

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-scalia-219392