Justice Scalia Dead

[CapnMac]

Been seeing a lot of noise on late night social media (not a cross section of the best and brightest, but still) on nominating various names so they can avoid prosecution. So, Holder's name is much mentioned. But Hillys getting a nod, too,

Which is an interesting twist on Chicago style politics. Which has a Machiavellian elegance to it. No love lost in that relationship. Spiles a potential Chicago contender. Makes a newsworthy bullet point for the presidential term, and shifts the follow on contenders to, what, Kasich and Sanders? So, no overshadowing the One.

But, more likely is a bait and switch, to get Sri into the chain of nomination.

I'm a tad worried not that the Senate will squander its political capitol and cave, so much as coping with a "recess appointment" after the November elections and the changing of the Congress. That's a long game to play, and not at all Chicago style., but, still.

 

[Aim1]

SCOTUS: where do we go from here?

I don't want to hijack a thread on the mourning of SCOTUS Justice Scalia, so I figured a new thread would be appropriate.





Now that Scalia has passed, where do we go from here? What's the chance of Obama getting a nominee through with a Republican majority?

 

[Kennydale]

Tough fight. The right thing to do is block any and every Obama nominee and let it go to whomever becomes the next POTUS. I still think we are headed down a very dangerous road. It seems the SCOTUS also like POWER and is willing to PASS LAWS that is Congress job to do, from the bench. in other words WE ARE SCREWED

 

[Red Wind]

As this article points out, many lame duck President's appointees have been rejected.

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

 

[TruthTellers]

As this article points out, many lame duck President's appointees have been rejected.

That was back when we had real men in the position to tell someone no and weren't afraid to be called names because they'd take the guy calling them whatever into a back room and they'd duke it out.

Today we have exactly what Trump says most of the Republicans are. I'll use more proper language and just call them Meow Men.

 

[jski]

When heard this I had the same feeling I did when Bork lost his confirmation. This is very significant. Scalia, like Bork was an originalist. He was the wall that stood between us and the left, which would gladly use the courts to destroy the constitution.

If this president gets another appointment - goodbye 2nd amendment. They'll shred the Heller decision (recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right) and they'll affirm all of this idiot's unconstitutional edicts.

This is pivotal.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

It will be an epic confirmation battle to be sure. The GOP has forfeit any inclination to lead nowadays; they make no pretense to leadership at all. Before the body was even cold they took to twitter bragging that no matter who the President nominated they would fight it. He could literally nominate Jesus and it would be blocked. Hard to say how that plays out. If Mr. Obama doesn't make an appointment it will likely be made by HilClin or Bernie. I'm not sure the GOP would like a Clinton nominee any better.

And the next president may well appoint two justices. Scalia's dear friend on the court Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82 years old herself. She seems pretty fit at the moment but at that age you never know.

I'm not sure how it will play out in the hyperpolitcal system we have now. The President has the power as spelled out in the Constitution to make appointments to the SCOTUS so there's no reason for Mr. Obama not to do so. But of course, it has to be accepted by the Senate and they currently draw breath only to obstruct. But can they stall and pout for eleven months? That's a very long time to go without a SCOTUS, at least in the modern era.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We will have only one thread on this topic.

 

[JT-AR-MG42]

This discussion goes beyond the passing of Justice Scalia and his to-be-named successor.

The advanced ages of both Kennedy and Ginsberg are also being thought about by both Parties as the election approaches.
The next president will, in all likelihood, be appointing those two positions.
That might be in addition to the current vacancy as well.

If you thought campaign spending was high last cycle?
Obama and his terms in office have shown the Democrats that division of the classes (sound familiar?)
and races is the key to winning elections.

If you doubt that, recall Hilliary in the last debate.
100% behind and knowledgeable about 'black lives matter', yet when asked about helping the economically depressed
(white majority) mining communities hurt by our going green, she just mumbled though a
'our administration will definitely be addressing that'. No clue on the issue, because
there are no votes in it.

Hang on, because it's a whole new ball game with a chance to completely,
once and for all, destroy the 2nd Amendment individual protections and
get this Country more in line with the Socialist Countries of the World.

And here I sit, a dumb working slob who was just trying to enjoy his hobby!

JT

 

[Sprouticus]

There was a nice little video on CBS Sunday Morning about Scalia.

It talked about his life as well as going into his belief in original intent or originalism as he called it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-2/

 

[Neo-Luddite]

The right man at the right time. Requiescat in pace Justice Saclia.

 

[yokel]

The anxiety expressed in this thread betrays the fact that justices are now perceived as politicians in judicial robes. How could it come this? Why this sorry state of affairs?

 

[OilyPablo]

The anxiety expressed in this thread betrays the fact that justices are now perceived as politicians in judicial robes. How could it come this? Why this sorry state of affairs?

Judicial legislation was attempted with FDR. It really came into bloom in the 1970s. Why? Social Control.

 

[daverich4]

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/13/justice-scalia-found-dead-texas-ranch/80347474/

President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy during his final year in office and Senator McConnell voted for him. Has something changed since then?

 

[DeepSouth]

President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy during his final year in office and Senator McConnell voted for him. Has something changed since then?

To be clear, that's incorrect. He was nominated in 87, he was however confirmed in 88 which was Regans final year.

It's splitting hairs really, but I just wanted to clarify.

 

[walnut1704]

I find it disgusting that "conservatives" (most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are anything but) who defend the Constitution like a rabid dog are so quick to deny the President his Constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

I'm not saying I like the current situation but that's the way the chips fell. It's not the Constitution only when it's convenient.

 

[DeepSouth]

I find it disgusting that "conservatives" (most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are anything but) who defend the Constitution like a rabid dog are so quick to deny the President his Constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

I don't think that's what's going on, they're fighting for the right of the senate to not confirm someone. They shouldn't just be a rubber stamp, right?

 

[climbnjump]

Do Thomas, Alito, or Roberts hunt, or do any shooting at all? I have only heard Scalia (of course) and Kagan of all people have any kind of exposure to firearms, if only recreationally.

The backstory of how Justice Kagan became a hunter is an interesting one and related to the subject of this thread. After she was appointed to the Court, she approached Justice Scalia and asked him to help her fulfill the only promise she made during her pre-confirmation interviews with Senators.

A quote from an article explaining the story:

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan bagged herself a deer on a hunting trip to Wyoming with Justice Antonin Scalia last fall. You heard that right: Despite finding themselves on opposite sides of major court decisions, the liberal Obama-appointee and the conservative Reagan-appointee have become hunting buddies since Kagan was confirmed in 2010 as the fourth woman in history to sit on the highest court in the land.

There is video at the link where she explains the whole story. If you are inclined to view it only for this, you can start at the 3 minute mark.

RIP Justice Scalia - a true defender of the Constitution.

 

[AlexanderA]

This drama (of a replacement Supreme Court Justice) is going to play out in front of the backdrop of the presidential election. If, later in the year, it looks like the Democrats will win the election, the Senate Republicans will have a powerful incentive to cut a deal with a lame-duck Obama so as, at best, to get a centrist replacement. Otherwise, a nominee by Hillary or Bernie would be infinitely worse.

Another thing to keep in mind is that once on the Court, Justices are responsible to no one and often go their independent way. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how they might rule on particular cases.

 

[AKElroy]

The Senate doesn't have to block it for an entire year - just until November. And that is with already scheduled bills & agendas, recesses, town halls, etc.

As far as whether they have the spine to do it as another poster mentioned, pretty much even from a strictly self-interest standpoint, it is in the interest of the party who controls the Senate to block the nomination. It has the potential to hugely influence turnout and the leverage in negotiating with the President is off the chart.

And frankly, I don't think the President's ego would let him nominate the type of candidate that might have a chance to get through. The President's party hasn't faced this situation since before I was alive. The Republicans on the other hand have been in the President's shoes several times.

Actually, the current senate term expires 1/3/17, with Obama's term not ending until 1/20/17. That gives him 17 days to make a recess appointment on his way out the door. He will likely defer to a Democrat to make that pick if one wins in November, but no way will he defer to a republican. This all assumes that McConnell has the spine to refuse to allow a single hearing on a single nominee for the next 11 months, while also keeping the senate in session every day between now and January 3, 2017. At that point, we may be forced to live with Obama's pick, no matter how stalwart the senate might be prior to this current term ending.

Of course, he could always appoint someone today or tomorrow while the senate is in recess, but with Scalia not even interned yet, I'm not sure even Obama has the nerve for that. Holding my breath until Tuesday morning just in case.

Even better, he could actually be a statesman and nominate someone acceptable to the majority. It is is sad that this is by far the least likely outcome.

 

[Lord Teapot]

Block it for an entire year, I bet they don't have the stones for that, but I sure hope I'm wrong.

This certainly isn't my realm of expertise.

i doubt they have the stones to block it for one month, much less eleven

 

[Poper]

Another thing to keep in mind is that once on the Court, Justices are responsible to no one and often go their independent way. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how they might rule on particular cases.

Except for Obama appointees. The people he appoints are so extremely partisan and ideologically fixated that nothing will dissuade them from their path. Not even the constitution.

All one has to do is look at his political appointees and judicial appointees to date. As far as the constitution goes, for the most part, the people he appoints could care less. I present Eric With Holder, Loretta Lynch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as specific examples of political ideologues in lieu of the best person for the particular job.

 

[ACP]

"I don't think that's what's going on, they're fighting for the right of the senate to not confirm someone. They shouldn't just be a rubber stamp, right?"

No, it's just more of the do-nothing GOP Congress. Obstruct, deny, do nothnig, complain, repeat.

Maybe we SHOULD wait until the next POTUS is elected! Who will Donald Trump appoint to the Supreme Court? Himself? HE CAN DO TWO JOBS AT ONCE, YOU KNOW! Ryan Seacrest? Martin Shkreli? TWO SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMEN, PEOPLE!

I know -- Sarah Palin! She can quit two years into her life term so Donald can appoint another loser...

Either a Democratic president or the NEXT Democratic president is going to appoint one, two or three Supremes, folks. Let's hope it's someone with a 360-degree understanding of what the Constitution is about, what makes America great, and what our Bill of Rights says. I don't care if that person is a hunter, fisherman, trapper, crochets blankets, collects porcelain figurines or doesn't own a smart phone. Just make the best decisions for us as a country.

And I think all this paranoia about the SC taking people's guns away is exactly that -- paranoia, which seems to be the absolute worst attribute of so very, very many firearms owners.

 

[climbnjump]

B. Roberts - "The successor must be approved by the Senate, and the Senate has been known to block the nominations of lame duck Presidents from the opposite party in the past. "

Yes, but...

If - IF - the article at this link is correct, the current Senate isn't going to have anything to say about it.

Due to several ill timed coincidences (otherwise known as Republican political ineptitude) on Feb 12, it appears that Pres Obama does have the ability to make a recess appointment to the Court sometime between now and Feb 22. If that happens though, that appointee can only serve until the current session ends on Jan 3, 2017.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Kennedy during his final year in office and Senator McConnell voted for him. Has something changed since then?

Well, the vacancy Kennedy was nominated for became open on July 1, 1987, and the Democratic Senate had blocked the two previous appointees (one via direct rejection and the other through withdrawal) until November 1987 when Kennedy was nominated. Even after that, Kennedy was not confirmed until February 1988 by the Senate. So I don't think that argument is as apropos as the people advancing it seem to believe it is.

And the last time a Supreme Court nominee was nominated by a lame duck President and confirmed by the Senate of the opposite party prior to that was in 1888. Frankly, if I were a Democrat wanting to make the argument that President Obama's nominee should not be obstructed, I don't think I'd be foolish enough to bring up Kennedy (and by implication Bork); because that is unlikely to generate a lot of sympathy.