Justice Scalia Dead (2 Viewers)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I think of Scalia and Rehnquist as more direct descendants of Bork, but I take your point, hell, your point is one of the points I am trying to articulate, though poorly. Actually I kind of hope to raise inklings of points but to allow others to articulate them for themselves.

 

[dparker713]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

For the "set number of jurists" to be less than 9, Congress would have to change the Judiciary Act of 1869. They have not.

They can still conduct business with six, but that is very different than suggesting that there is no set number. It's not like they picked "9" out of a hat...

9 is pretty damn random.

Yeah, but it's written down in statute law. So that pretty much "sets" it at 9. Not sure what you're trying to say when you suggest "The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists." That's not true.

9 is the current maximum. 6 is the current minimum. Either can be fairly easily changed.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

 

[dparker713]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I rather liked Souter's jurisprudence.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I rather liked Souter's jurisprudence.

So the Democrats did the right thing by borking then.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I think of Scalia and Rehnquist as more direct descendants of Bork, but I take your point, hell, your point is one of the points I am trying to articulate, though poorly. Actually I kind of hope to raise inklings of points put to allow others to articulate them for themselves.

Ha, consider it a postulation on my own part.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I think of Scalia and Rehnquist as more direct descendants of Bork, but I take your point, hell, your point is one of the points I am trying to articulate, though poorly. Actually I kind of hope to raise inklings of points put to allow others to articulate them for themselves.

Ha, consider it a postulation on my own part.

I consider it a strong postulation.

 

[dparker713]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I rather liked Souter's jurisprudence.

So the Democrats did the right thing by borking then.

I think it provided the Court with a better Justice in the short term, but wrecked major havoc on the nomination process that will hurt the Court long term.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

I rather liked Souter's jurisprudence.

So the Democrats did the right thing by borking then.

I think it provided the Court with a better Justice in the short term, but wrecked major havoc on the nomination process that will hurt the Court long term.

I'd agree but I think the Democrats would do it all over again if they could.

 

[Yenrub]

"Apparently, the GOP thinks that Black Presidents only get 3/5ths a term."

Rubio certainly thinks so

"The Constitution is not a living, breathing document, it is to be interpreted as originally meant." - Marco Rubio

 

[Zow]

The politicalization of the Supreme Court makes a fetus at the age of viability cry.

 

[Zow]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

You dont think if the Court swap happens they wont let emotions and partisanship lead them right to the 2nd?

I do, and I could see a strong push to reverse Heller. That was not, however, your question. You asked of strangers whether we would recommend that somebody unknown to us in any meaningful way ought to buy firearms. My response was no.

Would you recommend every law abiding gun owning citizen that likes the 2nd in its current form to purchase firearms before the court flips? Your clearly a lawyer and know way more about this than I do. Divorce yourself from me asking this question.

You're going to be fine.

 

[Ladsud]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

You dont think if the Court swap happens they wont let emotions and partisanship lead them right to the 2nd?

I do, and I could see a strong push to reverse Heller. That was not, however, your question. You asked of strangers whether we would recommend that somebody unknown to us in any meaningful way ought to buy firearms. My response was no.

Would you recommend every law abiding gun owning citizen that likes the 2nd in its current form to purchase firearms before the court flips? Your clearly a lawyer and know way more about this than I do. Divorce yourself from me asking this question.

You're going to be fine.

Im a cynic and now look at the Court as a political arm to either give the rubber stamp to an executive order or say no.

 

[timschochet]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

You dont think if the Court swap happens they wont let emotions and partisanship lead them right to the 2nd?

I do, and I could see a strong push to reverse Heller. That was not, however, your question. You asked of strangers whether we would recommend that somebody unknown to us in any meaningful way ought to buy firearms. My response was no.

Would you recommend every law abiding gun owning citizen that likes the 2nd in its current form to purchase firearms before the court flips? Your clearly a lawyer and know way more about this than I do. Divorce yourself from me asking this question.

You're going to be fine.

No he's not. Why not tell him the truth?

Ladsud, within 30 days of Obama's appointment being named, the Supreme Court is going to pass a law making all private guns illegal. They won't even wait to review an existing law, they'll simply declare their own. It'll be the day after they declare amnesty for all illegal immigrants.

You can buy all the guns you want now, but if you're caught with any of them in about 45 days or so, you're going to prison.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

You dont think if the Court swap happens they wont let emotions and partisanship lead them right to the 2nd?

I do, and I could see a strong push to reverse Heller. That was not, however, your question. You asked of strangers whether we would recommend that somebody unknown to us in any meaningful way ought to buy firearms. My response was no.

Would you recommend every law abiding gun owning citizen that likes the 2nd in its current form to purchase firearms before the court flips? Your clearly a lawyer and know way more about this than I do. Divorce yourself from me asking this question.

I do not advocate weapon acquisition to persons whose backgrounds, temperaments, and competencies I do not know. Additionally, the reversal of Heller, should it occur, would not necessarily immediately presage a reduction in opportunity to acquire firearms. That would likely be an extended process occurring in steps over some years. Hysteria buying has been going on for decades now. I personally see no immediate threats to ownership or acquisition on the horizon.

 

[Ladsud]

Serious question. Should I go buy more firearms?

No.

You dont think if the Court swap happens they wont let emotions and partisanship lead them right to the 2nd?

I do, and I could see a strong push to reverse Heller. That was not, however, your question. You asked of strangers whether we would recommend that somebody unknown to us in any meaningful way ought to buy firearms. My response was no.

Would you recommend every law abiding gun owning citizen that likes the 2nd in its current form to purchase firearms before the court flips? Your clearly a lawyer and know way more about this than I do. Divorce yourself from me asking this question.

I do not advocate weapon acquisition to persons whose backgrounds, temperaments, and competencies I do not know. Additionally, the reversal of Heller, should it occur, would not necessarily immediately presage a reduction in opportunity to acquire firearms. That would likely be an extended process occurring in steps over some years. Hysteria buying has been going on for decades now. I personally see no immediate threats to ownership or acquisition on the horizon.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

 

[Rove!]

I wonder if we're going to start seeing filibusters for every Supreme Court nomination, or automatic rejection of any nominee when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party from the POTUS.

It really hasn't happened to this point. I looked up the votes on the 3 rejected SC nominees and found it wasn't the case. Bork had 6 GOP NAY votes and 2 YEA votes from Democrats. The two Nixon appointees had more than a dozen NAY votes from GOP Senators. If all of the Republicans had voted for them they would have been confirmed.

In all seriousness this is my fear with the way this appears to be going since last night.

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.

Liberks held up Miguel Estrada from the Apeals court, in part, because he was Latino...

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=re-share

For those wondering... 8 months is a long time in the realm of things concerning a SCOTUS.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

It's not a "courtesy." It's their job. They're supposed to act like professionals.

Let's start with the premise that people shouldn't be two-tongued hypocrites. That means people shouldn't say "it's wrong when the other side does it," but "it's okay when my side does it." Either it's always wrong or it never is.

So we've got two potential non-hypocritical rules:

* We should do our jobs and vote to confirm or reject judicial nominees on their merits as best we can (without doing obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons).

* We should do obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons because screw boring, dutiful stuff like filling vacancies on the Supreme Court; all that matters is that my own tribe gains the upper hand.

Personally, I think the first rule is better.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I Tremblay

Even follow his line-up recommendations and stuff.

 

[dparker713]

I wonder if we're going to start seeing filibusters for every Supreme Court nomination, or automatic rejection of any nominee when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party from the POTUS.

It really hasn't happened to this point. I looked up the votes on the 3 rejected SC nominees and found it wasn't the case. Bork had 6 GOP NAY votes and 2 YEA votes from Democrats. The two Nixon appointees had more than a dozen NAY votes from GOP Senators. If all of the Republicans had voted for them they would have been confirmed.

In all seriousness this is my fear with the way this appears to be going since last night.

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.

Liberks held up Miguel Estrada from the Apeals court, in part, because he was Latino...

See, in pre school I learned that just because someone else misbehaved, it was still my fault if I misbehaved. Somehow no one in Congress or their supporters learned this.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Geoff Stone:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/tough-brilliant-and-kind-the-antonin-scalia-i-knew.html

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Didn't like many of Scalia's decisions but he was an honorable and brilliant guy.

 

[jon_mx]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

It's not a "courtesy." It's their job. They're supposed to act like professionals.

Let's start with the premise that people shouldn't be two-tongued hypocrites. That means people shouldn't say "it's wrong when the other side does it," but "it's okay when my side does it." Either it's always wrong or it never is.

So we've got two potential non-hypocritical rules:

* We should do our jobs and vote to confirm or reject judicial nominees on their merits as best we can (without doing obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons).

* We should do obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons because screw boring, dutiful stuff like filling vacancies on the Supreme Court; all that matters is that my own tribe gains the upper hand.

Personally, I think the first rule is better.

I have criticized the GOP. Their tactics are stupid. They should keep their cards to their chest, for starters. If they have the votes, they should vote the nominee down. If it truly is a moderate they should consider confirming. If you are going to act crazy, don't announce it. But I suppose it is an election year, so they want to appear tough to the base.

 

[Daywalker]

I really don't think majorities of liberals would be in favor of denying a sitting president, Democrat or Republican, their right to pass a justice.

It's part of what we vote for. To deny this is to disenfranchise the electorate.

It's un-American.

Don't think the thought really has crossed anyone's mind before. Just rules of the game. Neither side has done this in the past. To say now that both sides would do the same thing is a major leap. One side attempting this is a major leap.

 

[Daywalker]

Hopefully this proceeds like it always has. If it doesn't and somehow Obama is not able to pass a justice or a legal battle ensues I'd be hard pressed to think of a bigger threat to our country since the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. This is monumental if the Republicans try to sit on the ball. The repercussions would be devastating.

 

[jon_mx]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

I think after January 2017 it gets done no matter what.

Based on what? You think the Republicans are going to accept whomever Hillary or Bernie selects, assuming they win? And if a Republican wins, you think the Dems won't filibuster as payback? This seems ugly.

On this issue of the courts, payback from the Dems is not the issue. The Dems are the kings at filibustering and borking. Obama was able to get two very liberal appointees thru without a hitch. The circuit courts have been filled for the first time in decades. In relative terms, the GOP has played nice on this issue of the courts, although it did take some political maneuvering by Reid. Here the GOP will draw a line in the sand. It may get ugly, But worrying about how the Dems will act in the future is not even worthy of consideration. Dems will get dirty when it comes to the courts.

 

[jon_mx]

Hopefully this proceeds like it always has. If it doesn't and somehow Obama is not able to pass a justice or a legal battle ensues I'd be hard pressed to think of a bigger threat to our country since the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. This is monumental if the Republicans try to sit on the ball. The repercussions would be devastating.

pretty much the definition of hyperbola.

 

[Daywalker]

Hopefully this proceeds like it always has. If it doesn't and somehow Obama is not able to pass a justice or a legal battle ensues I'd be hard pressed to think of a bigger threat to our country since the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. This is monumental if the Republicans try to sit on the ball. The repercussions would be devastating.

pretty much the definition of hyperbola.

Taking down a branch of government is not a big deal?

 

[jon_mx]

I really don't think majorities of liberals would be in favor of denying a sitting president, Democrat or Republican, their right to pass a justice.

It's part of what we vote for. To deny this is to disenfranchise the electorate.

It's un-American.

Don't think the thought really has crossed anyone's mind before. Just rules of the game. Neither side has done this in the past. To say now that both sides would do the same thing is a major leap. One side attempting this is a major leap.

Explain Thonas and Bork then? Demicrats invented the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. To expect the Dems to confirm a pick which radical shifts the balance of power of the Suoreme Court is lunacy. It would never happen. They would get voted out of office first.

 

[jon_mx]

Hopefully this proceeds like it always has. If it doesn't and somehow Obama is not able to pass a justice or a legal battle ensues I'd be hard pressed to think of a bigger threat to our country since the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. This is monumental if the Republicans try to sit on the ball. The repercussions would be devastating.

pretty much the definition of hyperbola.

Taking down a branch of government is not a big deal?

Again with the hyperbolas. The Suoreme Court will function just fine while this is being resolved.

 

[Daywalker]

Maybe we can pay off poll workers to stay home and not have elections anymore.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

xy = 1

 

[snogger]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

no labels needs to start running as said 3rd party

 

[jon_mx]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

no labels needs to start running as said 3rd party

IMHO, the balance we had on the court was in perfect harmony with a more libertarian system of government. We had a court which upheld limits of authority on the executive and legislative branches as well as upheld individual liberties and civil rights.

Unfortunately, if Obama successfully gets a liberal on the court, there will be very little restraining the expansion of executive powers as well as the legislature's ability to regulate everything. It will be a very radical shift to the expansions of power and authority of the federal government.

 

[urbanhack]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

no labels needs to start running as said 3rd party

Unfortunately, if Obama successfully gets a liberal on the court, there will be very little restraining the expansion of executive powers as well as the legislature's ability to regulate everything. It will be a very radical shift to the expansions of power and authority of the federal government.

Can you unpack this with some examples?

 

[Slapdash]

The Charlie Rose/Scalia interview they keep showing on CBS this morning is good

 

[pantagrapher]

Hopefully this proceeds like it always has. If it doesn't and somehow Obama is not able to pass a justice or a legal battle ensues I'd be hard pressed to think of a bigger threat to our country since the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. This is monumental if the Republicans try to sit on the ball. The repercussions would be devastating.

pretty much the definition of hyperbola.

Taking down a branch of government is not a big deal?

Again with the hyperbolas. The Suoreme Court will function just fine while this is being resolved.

Same party that reassured us a government shutdown was really no big deal. For the GOP, this type of disfunction is a feature, not a bug.

 

[pantagrapher]

If the GOP stonewalls Obama's nominee and Hillary of Bernie wins the presidency, they should put forward the same nominee, to drive home the point that a political party just threw a year-long tantrum for nothing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

It's not a "courtesy." It's their job. They're supposed to act like professionals.

Let's start with the premise that people shouldn't be two-tongued hypocrites. That means people shouldn't say "it's wrong when the other side does it," but "it's okay when my side does it." Either it's always wrong or it never is.

So we've got two potential non-hypocritical rules:

* We should do our jobs and vote to confirm or reject judicial nominees on their merits as best we can (without doing obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons).

* We should do obstructionist crap for nakedly partisan reasons because screw boring, dutiful stuff like filling vacancies on the Supreme Court; all that matters is that my own tribe gains the upper hand.

Personally, I think the first rule is better.

I have criticized the GOP. Their tactics are stupid. They should keep their cards to their chest, for starters. If they have the votes, they should vote the nominee down. If it truly is a moderate they should consider confirming. If you are going to act crazy, don't announce it. But I suppose it is an election year, so they want to appear tough to the base.

So your answer to Maurile's original question is "no," correct?

 

[snogger]

So.. Obama skipping the funeral huh? 

 

[cstu]

So.. Obama skipping the funeral huh? 

Which is better than what Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell Jr. got — Bill Clinton and Al Gore skipped both of those. And that’s not a partisan slight — I don’t recall Bush or Cheney making it to Byron White’s funeral.

Bill Clinton made it out to Chief Justice Burger’s funeral, as well as that of Justice Brennan. But no less a titan of the bench than Justice Thurgood Marshall only rated a Veep in attendance, with Al Gore serving as the White House emissary.

 

[bakes]

You know, I looked at a bunch of stuff online about Scalia - the person.  And this is coming from someone who leans very left.   He seemed like a funny, ingratiating and brilliant mind, had a love of great food wine and music, and in general a decent person.  That person? I am sad he is gone.

His politics? His retrograde Constitutional opinions?  Those I will not miss, and we will likely become a better nation from his absence from the court. 

 

[snogger]

I get others have missed the funerals.. But with the contention state of this replacement you'd think you wouldn't want to not give the other side more yapping points.

 

[Righetti]

If he shows up people will say it is not genuine and is only done for political theater, if he doesn't it's insensitive. 

I don't care if he does or doesn't. 

 

[bakes]

If he shows up people will say it is not genuine and is only done for political theater, if he doesn't it's insensitive. 

I don't care if he does or doesn't. 

Lose/lose proposition.  I would show up just to piss people off.

 

[Daywalker]

I really don't think majorities of liberals would be in favor of denying a sitting president, Democrat or Republican, their right to pass a justice.
 
It's part of what we vote for.  To deny this is to disenfranchise the electorate.  
 
It's un-American.
 
Don't think the thought really has crossed anyone's mind before.  Just rules of the game.  Neither side has done this in the past.  To say now that both sides would do the same thing is a major leap.  One side attempting this is a major leap.  



Explain Thonas and Bork then? Demicrats invented the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. To expect the Dems to confirm a pick which radical shifts the balance of power of the Suoreme Court is lunacy. It would never happen. They would get voted out of office first.

Negotiating a justice and not allowing a president to pass a justice are two wildly different scenarios.

 

[Daywalker]

This is the death rattle of the Republican party platform.

D. Trump is not going to be POTUS.  So it's game over as far as selecting justices.  The Repblican sentiment is to blow it all up and take ur ball home.

Real patriots.

 

[jon_mx]

Negotiating a justice and not allowing a president to pass a justice are two wildly different scenarios.

Given the same circumstances, the Dems would do the exact same thing.  When it comes to the courts, the Dems have been more radical in the tactics they are willing to use.  The Dems have no high horse to be riding around on this issue. 

 

[Daywalker]

Given the same circumstances, the Dems would do the exact same thing.  When it comes to the courts, the Dems have been more radical in the tactics they are willing to use.  The Dems have no high horse to be riding around on this issue. 

You are on a website of mainly middle-age white guys.  For the most part.  And you are on an island on here.  What does that tell you going forward?