Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Justice Scalia Dead (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jobber
- Start date
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
So you're saying if this situation was reversed, the Dems would let any nom go flying through?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I agree. I was evaluating the nominees on a more global perspective. On the issue of a nominee to the Court I believe Bernie would look for an ideologue.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Not to me. The whole thing about "having a proven record" just means "someone that we have a good idea how they will vote on a wide variety of issues."
Higgs
Footballguy
That's not entirely what he said. I can't stand Ted Cruz but his main point was actually a fairly good one. He said that the Senate's constitutional obligation is "advise and consent", and that the Senate is advising Obama right now.
When you're trying to decide which judge to nominate to the Supreme Court, of course you're going to look at her record. That's one of the best ways to tell if she's a decent judge or not. And of course, since you are human, a good part of being a decent judge will mean agreeing with you on a wide variety of issues.
But that's different, IMO, from trying -- from your position in the executive branch -- to determine how the Supreme Court will decide a particular constitutional issue by having a litmus test. The whole point judicial review is that the executive and legislative branches don't get to decide whether the executive and legislative branches are running afoul of the Constitution. Go ahead and nominate judges who agree with you philosophically on a range of issues. But having a litmus test is effectively giving yourself a vote (or several votes, if you appoint several Justices) on the Court on that specific issue; and that offends the separation of powers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Yeah...let's no pretend that if the parties were reversed that the Dems wouldn't be trying to figure out how to keep a GOP prez from putting a conservative on the bench.
dparker713
Footballguy
I know you're joking, but Obama is exactly the sort of person the Court has been lacking for a generation. People with practical experience outside of the judiciary or the law. He'd be one of the most qualified candidates ever having been a law professor, state senator, Senator and President.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I guess I don't see the distinction Maurile is making. Presidents all try to pick justices that will vote the way the President wants. I'd rather have someone like Bernie that's honest about it.
pinequick
Footballguy
You got the Cliff's Notes version. See prior posts. There is only precedence to reject if Obama nominates someone:
1. accused of malfeasance (Fortas), or
2. so close to the end of the term that the Senate is already out of session and can't act until the next year (Brennan in 1956), which of course won't happen here.
In short, there is NO precedent for the Senate failing to confirm timely-nominated, qualified nominees in a presidential election year. It is fiction to say otherwise.
ETA: (In the past 100 years, anyways...)
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
You do realize that there is no requirement for SCOTUS to have 9 justices. Take this tact and by the end of the next term we'd be looking at a Court of Roberts, Kagan, Sotomeyor and Alito. (I think it's pretty likely Thomas retires shortly after this election and the others are just plain old.
I think there's a pretty clear difference between (a) "If this prospective nominee wouldn't vote a certain way on this one particular issue, I won't even consider her regardless of her other qualifications," and (b) "If this prospective nominee disagrees with me in general on a whole range of issues, I'll go with someone who is closer to my own philosophy instead."
This only pertains to controversial issues. If a prospective nominee takes some constitutional position that would lose 9-0 on the current court, and that has no backing among respected law professors, I think it's okay to eliminate her from consideration for that reason alone.
But on a controversial issue where there are smart, reasonable, well-informed legal minds on either side, I think it's wrong to exclude someone from consideration on that one issue alone. For one thing, there's a very real chance that you're wrong on that issue and the other side is right (as is the case with all such genuinely controversial issues), and it would be a terrible sin to exclude someone from consideration simply for getting the right answer to a hard question. For another thing, as I said above, it violates my sense of the purpose of judicial review and, more generally, the separation of powers for an Article II guy to so nakedly attempt to control the outcome of a specific Article III decision.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
If Obama is smart he picks a middle of the road nominee who would make the Senate turning them away look awful for the GOP. Having worked under this administration for seven years, and pretty closely the past 18 months, I'm not sure they'll be that smart. He has to remember he's replacing Scalia here, the most conservative Justice. A very moderate nominee who leans your way on your most important issues but is often swayed to the other side in other cases is the profile you want.
I think a lot of people around government who don't even like Obama still consider him a pretty strong legal mind, and he just made the perfect AG hire. So we'll see. I think it's ridiculous to suggest the Senate slow rolls this until a new president comes in, this country has a lot of major cases that are important in front of the supreme court. So we'd have to wait over a year to fill that seat? No, that is just not an option. The parties need to work something out and fill that seat.
I think a lot of people around government who don't even like Obama still consider him a pretty strong legal mind, and he just made the perfect AG hire. So we'll see. I think it's ridiculous to suggest the Senate slow rolls this until a new president comes in, this country has a lot of major cases that are important in front of the supreme court. So we'd have to wait over a year to fill that seat? No, that is just not an option. The parties need to work something out and fill that seat.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The Senate has been headed in this direction for quite some time. Both parties are equally to blame. The entire idea that the GOP somehow needs political cover or a good argument to hold up Obama's appointment completely ignores the reality that both sides have held up or blocked appointments on flimsy excuses and never paid an electoral penalty for doing so. No reason to think this would be any different.
Also, we all know that if this were a Republican president in his last year office replacing Ginsburg (who I hope goes on to live many more healthy and happy years), and the Democrats controlled the senate, everybody in the political realm would switch sides. These things are about the purest specimens of cynicism as you'll ever find in politics.
timschochet
Footballguy
You're absolutely right Ivan. The Dems would never allow it. Of course they're hypocrites.
But one reason I like this forum is that I believe many of us are not hypocrites. I know that personally if there was a Republican President in this situation I would feel the exact same way I do now. I would insist that the Democrats consider whomever he selected and if it's someone not too extreme, approve him. And Id be outraged if they didn't. And I think there are a whole lot of people around here who feel about this exactly the same way I do. There are certain things that should be above partisan politics and this is one of them. I have disagreed with Rubio on a whole lot of issues, but I was never angered by him. Now I am, because he said this morning that the Senate wouldn't even consider whomever Obama chose. That really offended me, really pissed me off. And I'm wondering how many other people are going to be pissed off by this?
But one reason I like this forum is that I believe many of us are not hypocrites. I know that personally if there was a Republican President in this situation I would feel the exact same way I do now. I would insist that the Democrats consider whomever he selected and if it's someone not too extreme, approve him. And Id be outraged if they didn't. And I think there are a whole lot of people around here who feel about this exactly the same way I do. There are certain things that should be above partisan politics and this is one of them. I have disagreed with Rubio on a whole lot of issues, but I was never angered by him. Now I am, because he said this morning that the Senate wouldn't even consider whomever Obama chose. That really offended me, really pissed me off. And I'm wondering how many other people are going to be pissed off by this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
A very nice resume on paper absent any judicial experience. Its too bad he does not understand the Constitution or respect it.
When President Obama announces his nominee, he should give this speech verbatim:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4580714/president-reagan-constitutional-obligationβ=
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4580714/president-reagan-constitutional-obligationβ=
cstu
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
Expecting judicial experience is part of the problem with the Court imo. Should there be zero former judges? Of course not. But I also don't think the number should be nine.
As for the Constitution, I'm fairly certain he understands it. He did teach Con Law at Chicago. However, you can view his actions as President as part of an adversarial process. The Legislature and the Judiciary are in a tug of war with the Executive. In that theory its not the President's job to balance the powers, its his job to push them as far as the others allow.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Daulton
Footballguy
It is kind of weird for a dude in seemingly good health (even if he's 79) to just die in his sleep. He was at a hunting lodge so I assume he was hunting so he must have been in pretty good shape.
the moops
Footballguy
James Daulton
Footballguy
Well he wasn't bedridden or anything. I'm just saying, dying in your sleep is something that doesn't happen a whole lot to folks who can still get around pretty well.
T J
Footballguy
I just threw up in my mouth.
T J
Footballguy
You're right. He doesn't respect it. He'd be as activist as humanly possible on the bench. Extremely scary thought.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
President Obama, IMO, has honored the Constitution, and generally the Supreme Court has confirmed that.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I think you meant to type Constitutional Scholars rather than Judicial Scholars. Regardless, no doubt your statement is true. I might quibble that what passes for scholarship these days is often partisanship and political correctness within an educational institution, but why quibble, what am I going to do, place my unverified resume as a curmudgeon on the web against his public resume?
As for activist appointments you would only advocate that if the activism is aligned with your politics. Generally speaking activist judges likely are so aligned, but there are a few activist right wingers on the bench with little to no controlling judicial philosophy and little respect for the Constitution. I fear activist judges.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
But couldn't one argue that Scalia was in fact an activist judge for conservative causes? Take Bush vs Gore for instance- wasn't that an activist decision?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I have already stated, I believe, that Scalia was not uniformly, in my mind, true to his espoused philosophy. I clearly stated I believe he readily perceived his beliefs as being aligned with the Founder's beliefs, and that the mistook one for the other more than once. To state it unequivocally, yes, I believe he could be an activist jurist. Now, would that decision, one with which I trust you disagree, give you pause in wanting activist judges? Me, I like them shackled by the Constitution, not free to legislate on political whim.
As for Bush v. Gore I found, and still find fault with the reasoning. It has been some time since I read it, but I remember finding one of the dissents persuasive. I could go back and look at it and let you know which opinion I found persuasive.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I believe you DW. Truthfully most of all I want smart people on the SC- apparently so did Scalia:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Was it Souter who wanted Bush v. Gore handled procedurally, finding it not yet ripe? I think he had a concuring dissent if I recall. I think tha twas the correct call. I seem to remember that Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas took their best stab at jsutifying th edecision, but that they were clearly justifying a partisan posiiton rather than analyzing the matter from beginning to end, starting with whether the controversy was then ripe. I know that the controversy was inevitable, that it would have ripened, I just remember believing that it was not yet so.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
I heard Scalia passed away due to a heart attack. Didn't see it posted here.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I want smart people who respect the Constitution, not those who use their prodigious intelligence to get around it. We often speak in this Country of the three branches of government. Sometimes we speak also of the fourth estate. What we forget, however, in many discussions is the fifth and most important point of the star, the People. We the People need to be respected and involved. All branches treat us as infants, doing for us what they think we might do for ourselves were we not indolent and incapable. Me, I want them sometimes to turn to us and say we have a quandary. The Constitution no longer seems to be serving our needs in this regard or that. We need you, the People, to come together, to forge consensus as once you did over 200 years ago. There are some things that you, the People, simply must do for yourselves, no matter how uncomfortable or daunting. Get off your asses, its time to engage. That will take the learning of skills long lost, the ability to listen to opposing views, to respect them, and to forge consensus. Too damn bad if its difficult, it is your duty as well as your right. Do it.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Interestingly I think he was the only candidate at the last debate that specifically named potential justices he would nominate.
-QG
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Apparently he did say that he wasn't feeling well the night before.
And a heart attack when you're sleeping at 79? Totally plausible.
-QG
cosjobs
Footballguy
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
James Daulton
Footballguy
What's the huh? People don't typically drop dead in their sleep. Of course, he wasn't young, but 79 isn't ancient anymore. Anyway, he probably did just had a heart attack or something. Or the libtards killed him. Definitely one of those.
Last edited by a moderator:
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
He was old and obese. But hey, Alex Jones says his gut tells him Scalia was murdered so there must be something there.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Seeing lots of comments like this around the internet.
"I greatly admired Scalia for his strict adherence to the constitution and unwillingness to skirt around it using loopholes. That's the way it should be. I only hope Mitch McConnell can find a way to delay the appointing of a new Justice so the current president doesn't get to pick him/her."
Not just one comment like this. Lots and lots. Surely they see the irony in this, right?
"I greatly admired Scalia for his strict adherence to the constitution and unwillingness to skirt around it using loopholes. That's the way it should be. I only hope Mitch McConnell can find a way to delay the appointing of a new Justice so the current president doesn't get to pick him/her."
Not just one comment like this. Lots and lots. Surely they see the irony in this, right?
James Daulton
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Given the way that the democratic party is doing everything un-democratic they can think of in a desperate attempt to get Hillary to be their nominee, I have no doubt they'd do the same. Both parties suck.
NutterButter
Footballguy
This is going to add a nice twist to some already good theater.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
I think GOP candidates were yuking it up on stage last night about how some of the justices a GOP president has nominated haven't worked out in their favor on every vote, is dangerous. If you know where a Supreme Court Justice's vote will land on every vote, then that justice is a problem.
Like I said earlier, nominating someone you think will side with your political leaning on the most important issues to you is acceptable. But Supreme Court Justices aren't politicians, they are supposed to interpret the constitution and make judgments for the benefit of the citizens, not because Ted Cruz wants them to. Does Cruz and Bush (maybe Rubio mentioned this also) understand that the Supreme Court is actually its own branch of government not beholden to the White House or the morons in Congress? I'm thinking they don't.
Like I said earlier, nominating someone you think will side with your political leaning on the most important issues to you is acceptable. But Supreme Court Justices aren't politicians, they are supposed to interpret the constitution and make judgments for the benefit of the citizens, not because Ted Cruz wants them to. Does Cruz and Bush (maybe Rubio mentioned this also) understand that the Supreme Court is actually its own branch of government not beholden to the White House or the morons in Congress? I'm thinking they don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Roberts was nominated in July but then it only took GW two days to nominate him as Chief Justice after Rehnquist died in early September. He was appointed on September 22nd. So 70 days. Democrats split 22-22 on his nomination FWIW.urbanhack said: