Supreme court justice Scalia dead!

vetinari

RIP to the man.
Didn't agree with his views in general.

Will be interesting to see what happens with Obama nominates a replacement.
Republicans won't want to confirm a nomination but could be harmful in an election year to spend the year blocking a nomination.

KingBrian2

Expect a lot of bias.

Manach

A decent and honourable man who had contributed much to legal jurisprudence in his various books/cases. May he RIP.

bnt

The makeup of the SC is a huge political football: Scalia was appointed by Reagan, who got 4 of his appointees on, and every president since him, including Obama to date, has got 2 appointees on the SC. It will be interesting to see if he can find someone suitable who can get past a fairly hostile Senate. I'm thinking of someone like his last appointment, Elena Kagan, who's very much a moderate "consensus builder".

oscarBravo

I agreed with very little he said, but he was always entertaining.

The reflexive responses from the GOP candidates are already looking predictably petty and self-serving.

AbusesToilets

It would be very difficult for the GOP to filibuster an appointment for a year to the SC.

Overheal

The president can also appoint someone during recess.

Skylinehead

Overheal wrote: »

The president can also appoint someone during recess.

How does that work, does the nominee not need to be approved?

Longest time between SC appointments seems to be 3 months, they'd do well to block it for 11.

oscarBravo

Skylinehead wrote: »

How does that work, does the nominee not need to be approved?

A recess appointment doesn't need Senate confirmation, but only serves until the end of the following Senate term. It's possible that a recess appointment could be made permanent if nominated and confirmed through the normal process.

InTheTrees

The Supreme Court starts its term in October and hears cases until early spring when they start handing down decisions.

It used to be a 5 to 4 conservative majority, but now a lot of decisions are going to be tied, in which case they are passed back to the previous court.

There's some important Union related decisions, abortion access and voters rights issues that will now saved from conservative interference(!).

Overheal

Either way the internet is falling over itself at the situation. Some people think no one should be appointed for no reason other than they don't like Obama and worry about a non-GOP appointee. Others are delighted that the GOP can continue its brand of obstructionism until after the elections.

Perhaps the 2 most controversial decisions he was a part of deciding were rulings on Voter ID laws, and Citizens United, which essentially equates money with free speech, ensuring that dollars matter almost more than votes.

http://www.ibtimes.com/antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-justices-five-most-controversial-opinions-2306576

His dissenting opinions on Obamacare and Gay marriage would not have swayed either decision as far as I read.

Overheal

February 1998, Kennedy and the GOP confirm Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court at this same time in Reagan's last term, as Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285

McConnel 2005: "The president, and the president alone, should nominated judges"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

McConnel 2008

McConnel 2012 invokes so-called Thurmond Rule: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_151/GOP-Begins-Judge-Blockade-215369-1.html?pos=hln

McConnel 2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice [...] Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

John Oliver wrote:

Yes, it seems the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a bit like God: when things are going your way, you don’t bring it up a lot, but as soon as you’re in trouble it is all that you talk about,” quipped Oliver.

Of course, since the Thurmond Rule applies to the last six months of a president’s term, it wouldn’t even come into effect until July 20. Either way, to outright deny President Obama’s choice to a fair nomination process would likely go against the wishes of the late Antonin Scalia, who, as Sen. Marco Rubio stated in the recent South Carolina debate, understood that the Constitution was not a “living and breathing” document and was meant to be interpreted by its “original meaning.”

“He’s right,” said Oliver. “Scalia loved the letter of the law—so let’s look at the letter as it applies here, shall we? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, ‘[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court. That’s the president. This president. There is nothing in the Constitution about you getting to delay him for a year because of some bull**** tradition.”

He continued, “So to Senate Republicans, I say this: If you really loved Antonin Scalia, you wouldn’t honor his memory by desecrating the thing he loved the most. Think of Scalia like a Britta filter or a child’s hamster: Why don’t you honor his entire reason for being by swiftly and efficiently replacing him.”

It seems as though the GOP's kneejerk reactions to Scalia's passing will end up betraying them. Obama hasn't even announced an appointee and already the partisans are flying out of the walls to shut it down.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

It seems as though the GOP's kneejerk reactions to Scalia's passing will end up betraying them. Obama hasn't even announced an appointee and already the partisans are flying out of the walls to shut it down.

There are enough republican senate seats who's current majorities are dependent on moderate republicans that its possible that a prolonged battled to stop Obama's nominee could swing the Senate back to Democratic party control.

endacl

Not nice to speak ill of the dead. So, with that in mind, I offer this full stop.

Manach

This seems to be a good neutral blog on the nomination process:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/#more-238336

Overheal

Oh dear f*cking Cthulhu.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/he-would-not-could-not-ted-cruz-will-filibuster-any-obaminee-for-scotus/

STEPHANOPOULOS: But does…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: — does that mean — does that mean that you’re going to filibuster anyone — anyone that President Obama nominates?

CRUZ: Absolutely. This should be a decision for the people, George. We’ve got an election. And, you know, Democrats — I cannot wait to stand on that stage with Hillary Clinton or with Bernie Sanders and take the case to the people, what vision of the Supreme Court do you want?

Let the election decide it. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.

But you know what, I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortion on demand, partial birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification. And I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of “The Constitution.”

All of those are 5-4 issues that are hanging in the balance.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But — but the people elected…

CRUZ: And I’ll tell you, you know, the consequence of…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — President Obama, didn’t they?

CRUZ: They did, but — but that — that was three years ago and elections have consequences. The people also gave us a Republican Senate this last election because they were fed up with Barack Obama’s lawlessness.

Invoking some fearmongering, Ted Cruz says he will help filibuster any candidate the President should try to appoint, because he was elected 3 years ago, everyone knows presidents only serve 3 years per term and do nothing for the rest.

Manic Moran

GOP idiots. There was one rational response to the issue in the most recent debate, I can't remember who it was, but he was saying "Obama should nominate a more centrist sort of judge to get it past our controlled senate"

The whole "We should wait for the next president" thing makes a mockery of any intelligent person. As if they wouldn't hesitate to nominate their own person if they were President right now.

Manach

I would say there is a measure of brinkmanship that the GOP are playing to check that Obama's pick will at least lack some of the Yes-person rabid liberal law-making potential that some of the Prog's more volatile members wish to put forward.

Akrasia

Manach wrote: »

I would say there is a measure of brinkmanship that the GOP are playing to check that Obama's pick will at least lack some of the Yes-person rabid liberal law-making potential that some of the Prog's more volatile members wish to put forward.

That's what they might be doing if they were a mature political movement, but they're 3 year old, so Cruz genuinely means that he will filibuster any obama nomination,

By filibuster, this means literally standing in the house of congress and giving a speech that involves reading names from the telephone book for hours on end, pissing into a jar and singing 'i know a song that gets on everybody's nerves' until everyone else goes home and it's too late to call a vote

Children, babies, who are looking to get the codes for the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote: »

GOP idiots. There was one rational response to the issue in the most recent debate, I can't remember who it was, but he was saying "Obama should nominate a more centrist sort of judge to get it past our controlled senate"

The whole "We should wait for the next president" thing makes a mockery of any intelligent person. As if they wouldn't hesitate to nominate their own person if they were President right now.

And if they controlled the house and the senate, they would nominate the most crack pot 'god, guns and apple pie' 18 year old they can find to ensure that they'll be able to block progressive politics for decades to come.

Shurimgreat

Not a hope in hell of any recommendation by Obama getting past the Senate or not without an almighty fight.

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president. Obama is desperate for a legacy but this is not the way to go about it.

oscarBravo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president.

He shouldn't do his job because of political opposition? What a strange idea.

InTheTrees

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president. Obama is desperate for a legacy but this is not the way to go about it.

He still has a quarter of his second term to go. I think Obama needs to take care of the duties of the presidency which is to nominate a new judge.

If republicans think its a good strategy to block the nomination right through the election campaign I think they'll be surprised.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not "exactly" the same thing. Schumer was pointing out that Bush had stacked the court with ultra-conservatives, and was making the argument that any more Bush appointees were likely to be equally conservative.

I disagree with his argument that they shouldn't confirm any further nominees, but at least he wasn't arguing that it would be undemocratic for a President with a quarter of his current term left to make a nomination at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...by conservatives

...and has sided with liberals on notable issues like health care reform (see the New York Times "The Roberts Court's Surprising Move Leftward").

The ACA is one of very few examples of him not siding with the conservative wing of the court.

A recent study in The Journal of Legal Studies and related data presented an even more nuanced picture. It ranked the justices in ideological order and was prepared by Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis; William M. Landes, a law professor and economist at the University of Chicago; and Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

They found that Chief Justice Roberts voted in a conservative direction 58 percent of the time over the last decade, while Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ranged from 61 to 65 percent.

But the chief justice leaned right when it mattered most. “He is a reliable conservative in the most closely contested cases but moderate when his vote cannot change the outcome,” the study said.

In 5-to-4 cases, the study found, Chief Justice Roberts voted in a conservative direction 85 percent of the time, a higher rate than that of any other member of the court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-amasses-conservative-record-and-the-rights-ire.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Fair enough. I'll dial back my "ultra-conservative" to "conservative". I'll still maintain that Schumer's message of "we should block any more conservative appointments to the SC" is different from the current GOP's message of "the current President has no right to nominate anyone to the SC".

Amerika

I support the GOP blocking any nominee of Obama’s that moves the court left. It’s not like the republicans started this. Actions SHOULD have consequences. Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork. Keep repeating that all those who think what the GOP is doing is so terrible. The US Constitution states the President makes the nomination... It doesn't state the Senate must confirm the nomination.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I support the GOP blocking any nominee of Obama’s that moves the court left. It’s not like the republicans started this. Actions SHOULD have consequences. Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork. Keep repeating that all those who think what the GOP is doing is so terrible. The US Constitution states the President makes the nomination... It doesn't state the Senate must confirm the nomination.

If the Senate doesn't approve of a nomination, it has the right to reject that nomination.

The idea that a GOP-controlled Senate should reject a nomination in retaliation for another rejection thirty years ago - when there have been nine other nominations accepted since, across the political divide - is childish beyond belief.

The Randy Riverbeast

You would think the priority would be to get the best person for the job. Its fascinating how ideology trumps facts for the republicans here, although when you are dealing with a party that is still arguing about climate change what do you expect.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the Senate doesn't approve of a nomination, it has the right to reject that nomination.

The idea that a GOP-controlled Senate should reject a nomination in retaliation for another rejection thirty years ago - when there have been nine other nominations accepted since, across the political divide - is childish beyond belief.

We all know if the roles were reversed, that Harry Reid would be doing the exact same thing. Spare me from the faux outrage over a tactic that has been successfully utilized by democrats and tolerated by the public... just because the GOP is now doing it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For what I think is the third time, I've said that I disagree with Schumer's argument. My point, also for the third time, is that it's untrue to say that what he said was exactly the same as what the GOP is saying now.

If the GOP's senators feel that Obama's nomination will bring the court too far in a liberal direction, of course they're within their rights to try to reject the nomination on that basis. But that's not what they've said: they've said, repeatedly and stridently, that they don't believe that the current president has the right to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

We all know if the roles were reversed, that Harry Reid would be doing the exact same thing. Spare me from the faux outrage over a tactic that has been successfully utilized by democrats and tolerated by the public... just because the GOP is now doing it.

Just so I'm clear: you're OK with what happened to Bork?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so I'm clear: you're OK with what happened to Bork?

I’m not happy about it, but it has set a precedent.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I’m not happy about it, but it has set a precedent.

You think he was the first nomination for the Supreme Court rejected by the Senate?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think he was the first nomination for the Supreme Court rejected by the Senate?

No, but I believe it was the first case in modern times that a political party pledged to oppose any nominee of a president, and was made even before Bork was nominated by Reagan.

Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was considered a moderate, often referred to as a "swing vote" in close decisions. Even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell, assuming that it would tilt the court rightward.

oscarBravo

So you're comfortable with the idea, now that the precedent has been set, that a Senate controlled by the opposition to the President shouldn't approve any nomination by that president?

It's just that you seem perfectly content that the GOP are pledging to block any Obama nomination, because Bork. Does that mean that you would cheerfully applaud a DNC-controlled Senate pledging to block any GOP president's nomination, because Bork?

The Black Oil

I know it's an election year, but the response so far as I what I would expect from Northern Irish politics, the DUP and Sinn Fein and it took how ever many years to sort that mess out. Pathetic.

Overheal

"There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored." - Robert Bork

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're comfortable with the idea, now that the precedent has been set, that a Senate controlled by the opposition to the President shouldn't approve any nomination by that president?

It's just that you seem perfectly content that the GOP are pledging to block any Obama nomination, because Bork. Does that mean that you would cheerfully applaud a DNC-controlled Senate pledging to block any GOP president's nomination, because Bork?

I wouldn't cheer it, but I'd expect it again, because of Bork.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I wouldn't cheer it, but I'd expect it again, because of Bork.

So you applaud it when the GOP do it, but not when the DNC do it.

Figures.

oscarBravo

An interesting read:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/16/3749722/the-way-america-picks-judges-is-stupid-and-needs-to-change/

Shurimgreat

oscarBravo wrote: »

He shouldn't do his job because of political opposition? What a strange idea.

America has a great democracy but its many checks and balances can be infuriating at times. I think its fair the next president has a say in what the supreme court should look like. The will of the American people selects the president and by extension its the will of the American people to pick the supreme court.

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like, as opposed to Obama filling the role with no doubt one of his cronies.

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above. The American people deserve a say, whether some people like it or not.

The Randy Riverbeast

Shurimgreat wrote: »

America has a great democracy but its many checks and balances can be infuriating at times. I think its fair the next president has a say in what the supreme court should look like. The will of the American people selects the president and by extension its the will of the American people to pick the supreme court.

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like, as opposed to Obama filling the role with no doubt one of his cronies.

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above. The American people deserve a say, whether some people like it or not.

They had a say when they voted Obama in for another 4 years. They didn't vote him in for 3 years of work and 1 year to look pretty.

InTheTrees

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think its fair the next president has a say in what the supreme court should look like. The will of the American people selects the president and by extension its the will of the American people to pick the supreme court.

But the next president will have the possible retirements of Ginsburg who is 82 and/or Kennedy who is 79.
Thats two. And you think it would be "fair" if they had three?
So would you expect the next president to hand over the nomination to the following president??

InTheTrees

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above.

The president nominates a new judge as soon as there's a vacancy.

Overheal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

America has a great democracy but its many checks and balances can be infuriating at times. I think its fair the next president has a say in what the supreme court should look like. The will of the American people selects the president and by extension its the will of the American people to pick the supreme court.

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like, as opposed to Obama filling the role with no doubt one of his cronies.

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above. The American people deserve a say, whether some people like it or not.

There's a superseding tradition known as Article II Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

oscarBravo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like, as opposed to Obama filling the role with no doubt one of his cronies.

As opposed, in turn, to his successor filling the role with one of his or her cronies?

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above.

No, there isn't. Many SC judges have been appointed by presidents in their final year.