Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

SCOTUS Watch

Scalia SCOTUS 2016 Obama

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 15 February 2016 - 07:40 PM

OK, to me, this is a pretty big issue for this coming election.  This one nomination [or lack thereof] could turn this election into one of the most important I have ever seen.  I'm tired of hit and miss conversations on facebook and twitter, and I decided to just come here and begin the conversation.

Article II, Section 2 says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices....

Let's begin from there.

I'm sure we all can conceed that no political party wants to see their standard bearer die with the opposite Party in control of the White House.  Democrats didn't like it when Thomas replaced Marshall.  The way that appointee changed the face of the Court has been recorded in every SCOTUS decision since his appointment.  But, Reagan was President, and he got it through the Senate, and we had to live with it.

As an example of an appointment in the last year of office, we have Kennedy appointed by Reagan as well.  This appointment came after Bork, and a few others.  And judging history, Kennedy has been a thoughtful Jurist, even if I haven't liked all of his decisions.  In this one case, I think the process worked.  Reagan was forced to come up with a more moderate candidate.  In fact, I think this perfectly illustrates how the system is supposed to work.  

What won't work is blatantly ignoring the process.  The President has a Constitutional obligation to appoint a jurist, and the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to advise and consent.  This is the law we all must acknowledge as the law of the land.  IMO any other talk can ultimately amount to sedition.

Now, in the land of political realities, the GOP held Senate will hate every candidate because s/he is not their candidate.  They want their own guy, just as Democrats want their own guy.  Political parties do not hide their agendas.  It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that each party wants to influence the court.  

And, the GOP is fully aware of the shift the court will take with this nomination.  But, without the influence of Scalia that shift is going to happen anyway.  Republicans can hold their breath and refuse to act until the next election, and the court will still change, even if they nominate their own candidate.  Why?  Because Scalia was that strong of an influence, just as Marshall was in his time. It isn't just a matter of replacing Scalia with the right political pedigree.  Scalia cannot be replaced.  His influence was monumental [for good or ill].  

It is the end of an era.  Everyone better just face it.

Going forward, all we have is the sanity of the Constitution.  We follow it, and see where it takes us politically.  I sort of feel sorry for Republicans in that, this one single issue will affect voter turn out among Democrats.  

Democrats win when there is a good voter turn out.  That's a statistical fact.  They are already off to a pretty good start at activating a lot of us old liberals who got tired.  I'm back here.  I can't believe I'm beginning a thread, yet here I am.  Others will be energized as well, and that spells trouble for The Senate seats up for grabs come November.  Democrats only have to show up to vote.  Republicans have to not energize the Democratic base too much, yet not piss off the GOP base who will expect them to obstruct.  That's a fine line to walk in an election year.  

Republicans could lose seats over this one issue alone.

If after obstructing until after the election, they lose seats, the next president will appoint a more liberal jurist with a friendlier Senate than would have been confirmed under Obama with a Republican Senate. Deal with Obama now and get a more moderate jurist re: Kennedy, OR bet you win the election, lose, and get another Marshall.  Do you feel lucky GOP?

My advice:  Be careful what you ask for.  You might get it.  

Stalling until the next election could make thing worse for the GOP.  And, not for just one election cycle, but for decades to come in the Court.  

http://www.politico....lacement-213629

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 01:23 AM

I deliberately waited before coming here and posting. I wanted to "work through" my hatred of Obama and the GOP blocking ANY nomination Obama makes. I figured it be better conversation if I waited and resisted the use of sarcastic one liners that come right to mind. For example: Let Obama's legacy be the President that couldn't get a SCOTUS Judge appointed.

All I have been hearing from the republican candidates is: "A Lame Duck President shouldn't be allowed this nomination." yada yada yada. When I first heard this line from the republicans, the question that popped right into my head was: Yeah, OK, but what if the next President is Hillary, or Bernie?" And yes, I shudder at the very thought of either of them as President.

My second thought was: If Obama wants to have ANY chance at the senate approving his nomination, he's going to have to nominate a very conservative judge. Only problem with that is that even if he nominated the most conservative conservative he could find, the balance of the court will still shift. You're right, Cait, about that. Scalia simply can't be replaced, he was a force of nature. And that's putting it mildly.

Also, my gut feeling is that even if Obama nominated the most hardline conservative he could find, the GOP senate would still block it. Just because it was an Obama nomination. And while a big part of me delights in Obama's frustration at the icing on the cake of his legacy being thwarted, I'm not sure it would be best for the country. Because, for arguments sake, say Trump is the next President...I, for one, cringe at the thought of who HE might nominate.

Now on the other side, you have the Democrats screaming that the Senate should approve the President's nomination. When all the while we all KNOW that if the roles were reversed, and it was a Republican lame duck President, with a Democratic controlled Senate, then the Democratic senate would be doing the EXACT SAME THING as this senate is talking about doing.

The GOP have enough votes to not nominate Obama's nominations, if that's what they want to do. I think, rather then stalling for stalling sake, they should just vote yes or no on the nominations made. They can stall just as easily by voting no on the nominations, and there isn't anything Obama can do.

My question is this though: When the Senate goes into recess this year, can Obama use the recess appointment process to get a judge on the USSC? I'm seeing differing opinions on whether a recess appointment to the Supreme Court is a valid option....and GOD won't even be able to save this country if it is an option. (Alright, I said I was "working though" my hatred of Obama. I didn't say I expunged my hatred completely.)
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#3 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:21 AM

Quote

My question is this though: When the Senate goes into recess this year, can Obama use the recess appointment process to get a judge on the USSC? I'm seeing differing opinions on whether a recess appointment to the Supreme Court is a valid option....and GOD won't even be able to save this country if it is an option. (Alright, I said I was "working though" my hatred of Obama. I didn't say I expunged my hatred completely.)

I've read some opinions that say, Yes, he can use a recess appointment.

Given the fact that it's an election year, and the political climate, it's not a good idea.  That gives ammunition to every Republican running this election year, and the accusations of a tyrant will be loud and insanely wrong.  He has the obligation to appoint Justices and to use the recess appointment [in other words, it's NOT unconstitutional], but using the recess appointment isn't good politics.  It would please the loud left, just as obstructing any appointment would please the loud right.  IMO, it's just not good governance to do either.

Everyone should just do their job.  Let's see who Obama nominates before we get ourselves into a dither.  Trust me, the sky is not falling.  Did you know that Obama and Scalia talked when he nominated Kagen?  Scalia approved of her.  Obama is not an ideologue nor a demagogue [whatever you might think].  This is not his first year in office with little experience.  This is his 8th year in office and he knows he can't get a hard left Justice appointed.  But the right moderate can be sold.  Let all the players do their jobs and let's see where it leads us.   Try not to listen to the politicians running for office, they want to please their constituents, and they want to outdo their competition.  

This is my opinion and my opinion only.  I haven't read any other opinion pieces, so I'm going out on a limb here.  Regardless of who gets the nomination and is confirmed, the court is going to take a turn to the left.  It's just going to happen.  Roberts will take back control of his court.  He will no longer have to deal with the opinions of Scalia.  Thomas will. hell, I don't know.  I don't know what he will do.  All the sitting Justices will be freed from the overbearing presence of Scalia.  His influence cannot be overstated here, and with him gone, the court will change dramatically with just the sitting Justices.

This kind of swing isn't that unusual historically speaking.  Whenever an ideology gets too far to the extremes, nature and politics usually self-correct.  We were traveling to the hard left with the Warren Court, and we made corrections bringing us to the far right with Scalia as the ring leader.  We're just self-correcting again.

People hate change, but it isn't always a bad thing.  If the court becomes more moderate without the influence of Scalia, what is so bad about that?  It's going to happen regardless.  John Roberts is going to take his court back, and no new justice, regardless of how conservative he or she might be is going to rip it out of his hands again.  It's his turn to make his mark on the court.  It will still be conservative, but not so extreme.  If a good jurist is appointed who happens to be in the Ginsberg, Kagen camp, then OK, we're moving to the left a little more, but these justices on the left are not extremists.

It's going to be OK.  Honest.  Trust the Constitution.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#4 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 09:50 AM

Maddow brought this up last night but it was the first thing that occurred to me after majority leader McConnell announced that no nominee Obama sent them would be considered.

Um, What happens next November if we end up with a repeat of the Florida hairdo from 2000 and only 8 justices on the court to make a determination on who won? 4 presumably voting to install the Republican, and 4 the Democrat... And now we have no president - or worse: two presidents. Maybe three - if the Speaker feels like he has to step up. What if the Chief Justice just unilaterally decides who to swear in?

The republicans could inflict serious and lasting damage to the nation over this - and everyone is watching. They're gonna flinch. It's what they do. The longer they hold out the bigger a topic this will be in November. And it's not just a one off. It's a pattern that recalls the fiscal cliff shenanigans in a way that will hurt next November. We are now sure to see the presidential narrative focused like a laser on a reckless and corrupt do-nothing republican congress - which would be unprecedented in my lifetime. A presidential election about the disposition of an incumbent _congress_. If that's what happens, and it's a heavy turnout election, you have to think it's bad news for the GOP's control of congress, gerrymandered house districts notwithstanding. Republicans were structurally likely to lose the Senate this cycle anyway (and get it back at the midterms in '18). Could a constitutional crisis put the republican House majority at risk, too? Maybe not but they could sure get a good haircut.

Also - if anyone thinks it would be unfair to replace Scalia with a liberal, please remember Clarence Thomas was GHWB's replacement for THURGOOD MARSHALL. So - no. That's the name of the game.

Edited by BklnScott, 16 February 2016 - 10:42 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#5 3C273

3C273
  • Islander
  • 347 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:11 AM

Scalia did more than approve of Kagan - he recommended that she be nominated for the Supreme Court!  He wanted a "smart" person to be nominated.

#6 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:15 AM

If there's a 4-4 split on the USSC, the ruling of the lower court is upheld, but no precedent is set. So we don't end up with no President in that scenario.

#7 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:38 AM

I'm not sure a state Supreme Court ruling would be acceptable to the people (not to mention the candidates) under those circumstances. Especially if it - say - installed the first democratic socialist president. I think it would be a serious crisis.

Edited by BklnScott, 16 February 2016 - 11:38 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#8 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:46 AM

Mightn't it go to a federal circuit court in between?

#9 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:52 AM

In 2000, IIRC, the SCOTUS stepped in immediately after florida's state Supreme Court having bought the bush campaign's argument that it would suffer irreparable damages otherwise. I'm assuming the same urgency would still pertain.

ETA: do you not think this is a BFD?

Edited by BklnScott, 16 February 2016 - 11:53 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#10 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 12:19 PM

Oh, I think the whole situation is a BFD. The specific scenario in question is unlikely enough I'm just more intellectually interested than excited.

What happened in 2000 was that the Florida SC ruled in favor of Gore, so Bush appealed directly to the USSC. If the USSC took the case, and the decision came down as a tie, the Florida SC ruling would stand, but no precedent would be set. Which I think would mean Bush (or whoever) could then appeal to a different federal court.

It's not a good scenario. I just think it's not that much worse than 2000, and it's very unlikely to happen. The Republicans are going to get destroyed this Presidential election. Like, party-collapsing destroyed. This convention is going to be a disaster.

Edited by Omega, 16 February 2016 - 12:20 PM.


#11 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 12:54 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 16 February 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Also - if anyone thinks it would be unfair to replace Scalia with a liberal, please remember Clarence Thomas was GHWB's replacement for THURGOOD MARSHALL. So - no. That's the name of the game.

Exactly.  That's the way the Constitution works.  The President appoints Federal Judges, and the Senate advises and consents.  I can assure everyone that when Thomas was appointed Democrats went crazy.  To replace Marshall with thomas was an affront to Marshall's legacy.  So, now the tables are turned. It's the orderly manner with which we govern under our constitution.  Scalia died.  Obama appoints his replacement.  Fair has nothing to do with it.  It's the obligation of the President to nominate.  End. Of. Story.  

Like I said, to suggest otherwise is to foment sedition.  I understand the passion of politics when your side is going to take a blow.  I've been there.  I've watched the court come down with some pretty scathing decisions in the last 20 years, and I will be honest, I'm looking forward to a court that leans more to the left.  Hell, if it just returned to center, I'd die a happy woman.  But, to suggest that elected officials NOT do their job is fomenting sedition imo.

View Post3C273, on 16 February 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

Scalia did more than approve of Kagan - he recommended that she be nominated for the Supreme Court!  He wanted a "smart" person to be nominated.

Thanks.  I forgot that.  Making my point even more profound.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#12 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 02:11 PM

View PostCait, on 15 February 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

OK, to me, this is a pretty big issue for this coming election.  This one nomination [or lack thereof] could turn this election into one of the most important I have ever seen.  I'm tired of hit and miss conversations on facebook and twitter, and I decided to just come here and begin the conversation.

Article II, Section 2 says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices....

Let's begin from there.

I'm sure we all can conceed that no political party wants to see their standard bearer die with the opposite Party in control of the White House.  Democrats didn't like it when Thomas replaced Marshall.  The way that appointee changed the face of the Court has been recorded in every SCOTUS decision since his appointment.  But, Reagan was President, and he got it through the Senate, and we had to live with it.

As an example of an appointment in the last year of office, we have Kennedy appointed by Reagan as well.  This appointment came after Bork, and a few others.  And judging history, Kennedy has been a thoughtful Jurist, even if I haven't liked all of his decisions.  In this one case, I think the process worked.  Reagan was forced to come up with a more moderate candidate.  In fact, I think this perfectly illustrates how the system is supposed to work.

View PostLord of the Sword, on 16 February 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

Now on the other side, you have the Democrats screaming that the Senate should approve the President's nomination. When all the while we all KNOW that if the roles were reversed, and it was a Republican lame duck President, with a Democratic controlled Senate, then the Democratic senate would be doing the EXACT SAME THING as this senate is talking about doing.



First: Cait: Me too.  I'm following this issue with eyes WIDE open.  Simply stunned at the unmitigated gall of the opposition party here - and the way they are entirely stomping all over Justice Scalia's legacy.  I'm paying very very close attention. (And posting.  So...)

Second: LotS - that bit of yours I quoted, follows that bit of Cait's I quoted.  The evidence suggests that neither political party acts this way ever.  This is unique to this particular congress as relates to this particular president.  When the show was on the other foot, democrats did not behave this way.

Third:  Seriously - how can the so-called conservatives behave this way?  Poor Justice Scalia must turn in his grave.  I have recently read some punditry on Justice Scalia's passing that had me scratching my head.  Like... REALLY?  THE guy who stood for originalist interpretations, would NOT support changing the understanding of the constitution from "one person, one vote" to "one voter, one vote."  Though it's a seductive sounding argument, it holds ZERO water. Those of us who are African-Americans and well remember the 3/5ths compromise, know that the framer's original intent was to count BODIES, regardless of how many of those bodies were actually enfranchised. Justice Antonin Scalia would have laughed the case out of court.  (here's what I'm yammering on about: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79985)  And so - with the passing of Justice Scalia, how exactly to people who claim to honor his legacy do so by trampling the constitution?  The constitution does not say "except in the last year of the presidency, the president shall appoint."  Nor does it say "except in the last year of the presidency, the senate shall advise and consent."  This extremely radical position is anything but conservative. It's a disgrace.

I hope the pundits arguing that President Obama will stick them with someone he dares them to reject or stall on holds true.  And I hope the American people are watching closely.

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 16 February 2016 - 02:18 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#13 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:03 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 16 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

And I hope the American people are watching closely.

QT

Unfortunately far too many of the American people are watching Fox News closely.  Scalia has only been gone a few days and the rhetoric is frightening.  

Quote

The constitution does not say "except in the last year of the presidency, the president shall appoint."  Nor does it say "except in the last year of the presidency, the senate shall advise and consent."  This extremely radical position is anything but conservative. It's a disgrace.

Indeed.  Maybe GOP senators will come to their senses in a week or two.  Maybe some will settle down to reality as more guys drop out of the presidential race.  Maybe the more realistic guys will remain and the crazies will drop down. (Maybe I'll win the lottery...)

Good to see you!!
Cats will never be extinct!

#14 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:39 PM

View PostOmega, on 16 February 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

Oh, I think the whole situation is a BFD.

Oh, OK! :)

Quote

The specific scenario in question is unlikely enough I'm just more intellectually interested than excited.

What happened in 2000 was that the Florida SC ruled in favor of Gore, so Bush appealed directly to the USSC. If the USSC took the case, and the decision came down as a tie, the Florida SC ruling would stand, but no precedent would be set. Which I think would mean Bush (or whoever) could then appeal to a different federal court. It's not a good scenario. I just think it's not that much worse than 2000,

I think it would be orders of magnitude worse. As problematic as it was, in 2000 at least we had a strong institution to step in and make the final determination. In the current situation, I don't see how there could ever be an authoritative determination on who won the election, which would be so corrosive to the social fabric I'm not sure we could ever recover. What if the new president started a controversial war, as Bush did? Not to mention the damage to our governing institutions - if our elections don't work, and our judiciary doesn't work, and the congress exists solely to obstruct the opposition party executive to the extent that they even have to be shamed into paying the bills... I think it would be worse than 2000. Very very worse.  

Quote

it's very unlikely to happen.

Well, yeah, it's unlikely to happen. It was unlikely to happen in 2000. But the fact that it happened 15 years ago suggests it could happen again. The political climate is similar. (The current House majority is like maybe a smidge more radical than the contract with america House republican majority, honestly. Social media's effect on the discourse makes it seem more intense now.)

Quote

The Republicans are going to get destroyed this Presidential election. Like, party-collapsing destroyed. This convention is going to be a disaster.

I'm so excited! At least one contested convention. BTW, are you assuming Hillary is the Democratic nominee? I'm not assuming that anymore. And if she's not, Bloomberg is definitely in.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#15 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:48 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 16 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

First: Cait:

Oh, so good to see and hear from you.  I wondered if this topic might bring out the best of EI, and it has.  To be honest, there is nothing quite as gratifying as a nice long conversation with you on, well, anything.  It's so good to see you my friend.

Quote

And so - with the passing of Justice Scalia, how exactly to people who claim to honor his legacy do so by trampling the constitution?  The constitution does not say "except in the last year of the presidency, the president shall appoint."  Nor does it say "except in the last year of the presidency, the senate shall advise and consent."  This extremely radical position is anything but conservative. It's a disgrace.

I'm not surprised, yet I am completely surprised.  I have no idea how anyone who is Conservative and an originalist could suggest the President not fulfill his Constitutional obligation and appoint a Justice.

In the very first case that the Supreme Court exerted its Constitutional power, the Court agreed that Madison had acted illegally by not performing his duty by delivering the commission to Marbury.  The case was decided against Marbury because of jurisdiction, NOT because Madison was correct in refusing to deliver Marbury's commission.

https://en.wikipedia...bury_v._Madison

Quote

he case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams but whosecommission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and correctible. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of ordering Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.


Every Supreme Court Justice would turn over in his/her grave at the thought of actually refusing to do your constitutional duty.  The only way our democracy and our Constitution work is for public officials to do their constitutional duty.  They might not always like it, but the Constitution trumps ideologies.  Sure, there is politics to be played in doing these jobs.  We've all seen it.  But outmaneuvering your opponents while doing your job is not unconstitutional.  NOT doing your job is.


Quote

I hope the pundits arguing that President Obama will stick them with someone he dares them to reject or stall on holds true.  And I hope the American people are watching closely.

QT

Unless someone reverses the course the Gop is on right now, it only helps Democrats regardless of what the GOP does.  Like I said up thread, high voter turn out means Democrats win.  High voter turnout means the down ticket is affected.  It means Senate seats are up for grabs.  It means a dent might be out in the House.  This Congress is despised by both sides of the aisle.  This is a hot ticket issue and it could mean this election is actually up for grabs down ticket.

I hope Obama does his job.  I know there are many who don't like the job he has done, and that is OK.  Vote for the people who do their jobs the way you like.  That's what elections are all about.  But to actually support people who refuse to do their jobs... the mind boggles.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#16 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 04:00 PM

Nate silver has a chart up on when justices were nominated and confirmed or the nomination was withdrawn.  It's an interesting time line.  Seems Presidents nominated Justices when a seat was vacated.  Funny that.

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?partner=538

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 04:03 PM

Thank Cait for starting this thread. Nice to see everyone :)

This would be a huge deal no matter when this happened. For this to happen 2-3 weeks after the Iowa caucus in this election year, under the current political climate makes this a colossal deal. I have been following the American Presidential primaries closer than I have before. Both of these topics deserve their own thread though, and I will not mention the primaries any further here.

If I recall correctly Cait it is actually your posts over the years that have made me follow the USSC closer. I also believe you have discussed before how choosing a USSC judge is one of the most important and lasting decision a President can make.

It actually seems we are all mostly in agreement here, that the constitution should be followed. Obama should nominate someone, and the senate should do their work of assessing and deciding on whether to approve the candidate or not. Not delay delay delay.

Though I agree, a recess appointment is a bad idea, if it comes down to it.

This issue is going to rile both bases though.

View PostLord of the Sword, on 16 February 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

All I have been hearing from the republican candidates is: "A Lame Duck President shouldn't be allowed this nomination." yada yada yada. When I first heard this line from the republicans, the question that popped right into my head was: Yeah, OK, but what if the next President is Hillary, or Bernie?" And yes, I shudder at the very thought of either of them as President.

My understand is a lame duck President is only a lame duck in his last term from Nov to Jan (the new election and the swearing in of the new President). It would be one thing if Scalia had passed in the fall, but Obama has 11+ months left to his term.

View PostQueenTiye, on 16 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

I hope the pundits arguing that President Obama will stick them with someone he dares them to reject or stall on holds true.  And I hope the American people are watching closely.

QT

I have heard some speculate that Barack could, if he wanted to, nominate someone who hits certain demographics (in addition to being qualified of course) which could really rile the base and/or irritate those voting 'blocs' against the Republicans if they stall on their nomination...


What will happen with cases determined in the mean time?

There are some very interesting and divisive cases coming up this spring as I recall...  I already understand that in a tie that no precedent is set and the the lower courts decision remains in place for the jurisdiction it covers, which could mean different results in different part of the countries.

However, how long is such circumstances tenable? Can the same claimant/case be brought up to the court again after a ninth justice is confirmed...? Or would if have to be a different case with different parties?

Edited by sierraleone, 16 February 2016 - 04:12 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 04:19 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 16 February 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]
If I recall correctly Cait it is actually your posts over the years that have made me follow the USSC closer. I also believe you have discussed before how choosing a USSC judge is one of the most important and lasting decision a President can make.

LOL, yes, I have always been a SCOTUS fanatic.  I'm probably the only one who actually watches Senate Confirmation hearings on new Justices.  And, I can tell you that many a President and political party has been shocked when a Justice began making decisions.  People often forget that Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower.  That Souter was appointed by Bush 41.  Most justices have worked out to be fair and not just the arm of any political party.  It seems times have changed, but overall, we've been lucky with most of the justices who sat on the bench imo.

Congressmen and Senators come and go.  presidents come and go.  Laws and which political ideology is in control come and go.  The Courts are our promise of redressing a grievance.  The Courts are the most important branch imo.  I follow the court like an excited child sometimes.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the Roberts Court changes without Scalia.  Scalia was an originalist, I don't think there are any others sitting on the court at present.  Oh sure, some strict constructionists, but not an originalist.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  I just think it will be exiting to see the shift in the court without Scalia's presence.

Quote

My understand is a lame duck President is only a lame duck in his last term between Nov and Jan (the new election and the swearing in of the new President. It would be one thing if Scalia had passed in the fall, but Obama has 11+ months left to his term.
  

Yes, that is the definition of lame duck.  it's the time between an election and taking office..about 3 months for a new President.


Quote

However, how long is such circumstances tenable? Can the same claimant/case be brought up to the court again after a ninth justice is confirmed...? Or would if have to be a different case with different parties?

As I understand it from my reading these last two days, a 4-4 tie doesn't make law, that's why it is so important to fill the vacancy.  There is no final word on the law with a 4-4 tie.  The lower court's decision stands.  But that is not the highest court in the land.  SCOTUS has the final work in law. A tied court means there is no final word, and as such no precedence is set for future cases.  And, the claimants of a split decision can re-apply to the Supremes when the court is full, without having to go through the process with another case.  At least that's the way I understand it.  But, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.  [I only wish I was... LOL ]

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#19 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 04:31 PM

View PostCait, on 16 February 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:


Scalia was an originalist, I don't think there are any others sitting on the court at present.  Oh sure, some strict constructionists, but not an originalist.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  I just think it will be exiting to see the shift in the court without Scalia's presence.


https://en.wikipedia...iki/Originalism

I would agree with the Wikipedia article that Justice Thomas is also an originalist.  But I don't follow the court as you do. :)

I am indeed hopeful for a Roberts court.  I supported his nomination when it was made, and I don't agree with many of the court's decisions, but I largely think that he has been a fair jurist.

The received wisom of who the next nominee is leaves me cold.  Even taking into account the likelihood that any nominee will be rejected, I really want President Obama to nominate someone who anyone with eyes can see SHOULD get confirmed, and then dare the senate to deny that person. But alas, I think we are far from the days when you could avoid appointing a lawyer, so the choices are limited.  While everyone is drooling over Loretta Lynch and Kamala Harris, I wish we could nominate Wesley Clark. Go figure.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#20 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 04:57 PM

We don't have those figures anymore, though, do we? (Serious question - anyone?)

I think Colin Powell might be nearest to that particular mark but even he is tarnished. And 78.

ETA: Or Biden, I suppose - but age is also a factor there. Surely the nominee will be markedly younger than both...?

Ultimately I think Obama will get a third justice on the bench. I like Lynch a lot - especially if he nominates Preet Bharara to succeed her at Justice.

Edited by BklnScott, 16 February 2016 - 05:04 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Scalia, SCOTUS, 2016, Obama

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users