NFT: REPORTED: Supreme Court Justice Scalia Found Dead

change the country, he should nominate someone far left/liberal, but still qualified person. This would help him with his base, force the Senate to reject the nomination, allow him to chastise the senate for failing to approve the nomination and help the democrats in November. He then helps Hillary win, possibly gets 2 or 3 more liberal justices through in her administration and alters the United States forever in the direction he wants it to go.
He would have the final laugh on Congress....

senate republicans have voted for before.

This is exactly the way it's going to play out. Seriously.

Well respected by both sides. He's a bit old-63-but that might actually help him out. GOP wouldn't fear he'll be there for 30 + years or so.

Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.

before yesterday afternoon.

Kennedy is 80 in July. Notorious RBG is 83 next month. Breyer is 78 in August.

In comment 12814486 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Well respected by both sides. He's a bit old-63-but that might actually help him out. GOP wouldn't fear he'll be there for 30 + years or so. Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.

I also disagree with the lifetime appointment. It really saddles the court. Maybe make it a 15 yr appt.

to watch. It could get really crazy. We could turn hard right or hard left. The news media and politicians have done a great job dividing the people.

In comment 12814486 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Well respected by both sides. He's a bit old-63-but that might actually help him out. GOP wouldn't fear he'll be there for 30 + years or so. Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.

Garland or someone like Sidney Thomas from the 9th Circuit make sense if the Republicans tell Obama they will not confirm a younger nominee no matter how broad of support he/she had when appointed to Court of Appeals

it is sad we have gotten so partisan that Republicans put politics over the Constitution .

I guess the l 25% of a Presidents term no longer counts.

That said I assume Obama will quickly pick someone who has recently been confirmed by the Senate for Circuit Court .
a candidate like like D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan —confirmed 97 to 0 just 3 years ago.. unless some personal issue arises (which didn't happen in his previous confirmation)
it would be hard for Republicans to make an argument about voting him down for Supreme court

doesn/t needs an excuse not to do the right thing.

But this idea that Obama shouldn't even make a selection & that the next POTUS should is ridiculous.

Obama is no idiot. He's not going to nominate some far left judge. He's going to nominate a moderate Democrat-probably someone who got overwhelming previous GOP support-& force the GOP to make the next move.

My guess is that Republicans kill the nomination, with _______________ (fill in the blank) becoming a rallying cry for Democrats in '16.

It's going to be interesting.

In comment 12814456 CMicks3110 said:

Quote:

not consent to a nominee, but that they should go through the process. They shouldn't be allowed to just not consider a nominee. They can certainly vote the nominee down. But to not act I think is something that should be looked at.

There is no constitutional requirement of process. It's even less likely that they USSC would require hearings than it would require a vote. But both seem unlikely. Especially with the Roberts Court. Roberts appears very defensive of the Court as an institution. I dont think he'd the Court encroaching on another co-equal institution (the Senate) and would worry about issuing a ruling that would likely be ignored.

In comment 12814521 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

But this idea that Obama shouldn't even make a selection & that the next POTUS should is ridiculous. Obama is no idiot. He's not going to nominate some far left judge. He's going to nominate a moderate Democrat-probably someone who got overwhelming previous GOP support-& force the GOP to make the next move. My guess is that Republicans kill the nomination, with _______________ (fill in the blank) becoming a rallying cry for Democrats in '16. It's going to be interesting.

SF, it could go either way. I strongly tend to agree that he will choose a moderate, recently appointed with little opposition judge or maybe Loretta Lynch, who is supposed to be a tough, no-nonsense prosecutor.

I also would not discount him going for the jugular with a strong leaning liberal to put the Senate in a bind and help the Dems chances in November. He is a cold calculating, smart man.

Getting Lynch's appointment to AG was tough enough.

Of course he could go the total FU route, in which he appoints someone like Holder, a move that would probably crash the Internet. He'd know he'd never get confirmed, but he'd force Senate GOP to kill the nomination & the optics would look horrible.

In comment 12814475 section125 said:

Quote:

change the country, he should nominate someone far left/liberal, but still qualified person. This would help him with his base, force the Senate to reject the nomination, allow him to chastise the senate for failing to approve the nomination and help the democrats in November. He then helps Hillary win, possibly gets 2 or 3 more liberal justices through in her administration and alters the United States forever in the direction he wants it to go. He would have the final laugh on Congress....

It would only help with his base. The R base won't care and most in the middle will make decisions based on other things.

I think he appoints a moderate Democrat. One of the things he bemoaned in the SOTU was the tone of politics today. Nominating someone with no chance of getting appointed, but who would cause a ton of controversy would directly contradict that. And while it sounds somewhat ridiculous to even state, I think he actually wants the person to get confirmed.

Seriously, unless it is a consensus pick, it ain't happening. Nobody cares about how many votes a circuit judge got in confirmation, particularly a recent nominee. Means nothing at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

There is plenty of time and justification to run out the clock considering how arduous the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice is. Even at a reasonable pace maybe they get to a committee vote before the election, but it will be so close and so heated that it wouldn't be irresponsible to leave it to the next President. Just have to be willing to take it on the chin if Bern or Hillary wins.

Sri Srinivasan gets voted down, what's the explanation? He was confirmed 97-0 in '13. He's worked under both the Bush & Obama administrations. Most reasonable people are going to think, 'Well this dude got almost universally confirmed a few short years ago. He's worked for both a Republican and Democratic president. What's the issue?'

Again, GOP is well within their right to block a nominee. And Democrats are well within their right to run with it going forward if they find the reasons absurd.

In comment 12814554 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Sri Srinivasan gets voted down, what's the explanation? He was confirmed 97-0 in '13. He's worked under both the Bush & Obama administrations. Most reasonable people are going to think, 'Well this dude got almost universally confirmed a few short years ago. He's worked for both a Republican and Democratic president. What's the issue?' Again, GOP is well within their right to block a nominee. And Democrats are well within their right to run with it going forward if they find the reasons absurd.

This...

97-0 to one position on a lower court doesn't mean anything but we liked the guy for the position being put forward at the time. That vote could flip on its head for a variety of reasons when under the bright spotlight of a Supreme Court nomination and the specter of a lifetime appointment.

it's taken to replace a supreme court judge is 125 days. I am not sure of the number. If the republicans block until after the election it will be over 400 days before we get a new judge.

In comment 12814561 wrecking crew said:

Quote:

it's taken to replace a supreme court judge is 125 days. I am not sure of the number. If the republicans block until after the election it will be over 400 days before we get a new judge.

It was 15 months (1996 with Bill C as president), and it was in a similar general election year. heard that this morning on the news....

In comment 12814561 wrecking crew said:

Quote:

it's taken to replace a supreme court judge is 125 days. I am not sure of the number. If the republicans block until after the election it will be over 400 days before we get a new judge.

125 days with 8 justices wouldn't crack or otherwise come close to the list of longest. See the chart in this article. If the vacancy exists when the next president comes in to office, then we'll get close to the longest.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12814560 glowrider said:

Quote:

97-0 to one position on a lower court doesn't mean anything but we liked the guy for the position being put forward at the time. That vote could flip on its head for a variety of reasons when under the bright spotlight of a Supreme Court nomination and the specter of a lifetime appointment.

Well, they don't have to give an explanation, but people are going to ask for one. And you can damn well be sure the Democrats are going to hit them every single day on why __________ was voted down, especially if there's nothing bad there.

That they will be able to not only vote for President but hold an immediate referendum on the court and its future. That's your explanation you'll get and its a valid one.

Party. A new D president will get a more liberal justice than this President could hope for.

in 2012. And it's a term that ends on January 20, 2017.

In comment 12814577 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

in 2012. And it's a term that ends on January 20, 2017.

Technically, correct. Practically, it's already over. He's basically a lame duck with an opposition Congress in a Presidential election year. This isn't legislation or an executive order. It is a Supreme Court nomination. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. (Unless it's a consensus pick).

He's been losing power and authority by the minute.

that republicans are already putting forward doesn't hold water. The president of the united states doesn't have the luxury of just easing himself into retirement for the last 12 months in office - he has to continue to make important decisions, and many of those decisions are ones of great consequence.

Lame duck President McCain would make an appointment that would be rejected until the new President takes over in 2017. There were two separate occasions where the GOP and citizens of the country could have prevented Obama from making Supreme Court decisions. "Elections have consequences" isn't just a pretty little saying.

is the longest period of any one justice to get confirmed - not the longest the Court has ever gone without 9 judges.

What's fairly unprecedented here is McConnell telling Obama that he shouldn't bother nominating anyone - even though nominating SCOTUS judges is one of his explicit Constitutional obligations.

And I think it's mostly because it's Scalia who died. If Ginsberg had died, I don't think they'd be suggesting this. They seem to think that Obama has some sort of obligation to replace one conservative firebrand with another, and if he's not going to do that, he shouldn't nominate anyone.

left leaning bloc. Opportunity to stack on another vote to counter-balance Kennedy/Roberts.

Under any circumstance, the Republicans would be wise (from their view) to wait until the next President. If they win, they win, if they lose, it'd be a wash.

In comment 12814589 moespree said:

Quote:

Lame duck President McCain would make an appointment that would be rejected until the new President takes over in 2017. There were two separate occasions where the GOP and citizens of the country could have prevented Obama from making Supreme Court decisions. "Elections have consequences" isn't just a pretty little saying.

Well the people elected R Senators, so that has consequences too. Balance of powers and all that.

section125 : 11:56 am : link : reply

change the country, he should nominate someone far left/liberal, but still qualified person. This would help him with his base, force the Senate to reject the nomination, allow him to chastise the senate for failing to approve the nomination and help the democrats in November. He then helps Hillary win, possibly gets 2 or 3 more liberal justices through in her administration and alters the United States forever in the direction he wants it to go.
He would have the final laugh on Congress...[/quote]

No, he shouldn't do that. He should nominate a highly qualified candidate with 60/40 liberal leanings, and watch the Republicans jump all over themselves to come up with excuses as to why he/she isn't good enough. I am confident that such a person would get voted down. THAT would send the right message message to the voters. The last think he wants to do is give the opposition a seemingly valid reason for keeping the candidate bottled up.

One of the first three on San Fran's list, for example.

It will also have to be someone who has never written anything regarding abortion. That third rail would derail any candidate. Many judges have never written on the topic, so that shouldn't be too difficult a hurdle.

In comment 12814470 wrecking crew said:

Quote:

refuse to vote and wait until after the election, we won't get another judge until next spring. Well over a year from now. That seems a little crazy. I think a lot of senate republicans who are up for reelection are going to have a very tough decision to make. If they vote for obamas pick their voters will turn on them. If they block his pick it will be used against them in the election.

And they can also use to their advantage. No Republican in his/her right mind running for re-election would vote to appoint Obama's selection. It would be political suicide. They will block any nominee and both parties will rally the bases. It's going to be quite an election. The losers from all this is Trump and Sanders. This just got real.

What does the GOP want, and when? Most likely they want the white house in 2017. So the SCOTUS appt should be a pawn to help them get there.....

Their demographic is significantly smaller than the dems, and likely will be for a long time under current conditions. To win an uphill election requires a confluence of positive events.

1) Obstruct the SCOTUS appt. Appeals to their base but distances them further from the centrist votes they need to get to the white house

2) Perform their constitutional duty on schedule. Make their positions clear about their vision for the country as an appeal to mobilize their core. At the same time serve the people as a centrist would expect.

Which do you think would win more votes for the GOP nominee?

It is hypothetical only. The next six months is going to be about them shooting themselves in their feet. Will probably their "anti-abortion for incest/rape" moment in 2016

precisely because they have caved to Obama for the last 7 years. If they want to win the white house the only way is to block Obama's nominee. Otherwise half their base will not vote in November.

In comment 12813872 Deej said:

Quote:

I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc.

I hope this thread gets around to William O. Douglas. Based on the above, I'm eagerly waiting to hear your comments.

caved to Obama the last seven years? More like they have stayed in a cave the last seven years.

In comment 12814545 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Getting Lynch's appointment to AG was tough enough. Of course he could go the total FU route, in which he appoints someone like Holder, a move that would probably crash the Internet. He'd know he'd never get confirmed, but he'd force Senate GOP to kill the nomination & the optics would look horrible.

Actually nominating Holder would be an incredible mistake. Republicans could vote him down on things like the IRS issue and "Fast & Furious" not look like they were voting down an Obama nominee simply because he was because he was nominated by Obama. A little bit, but not exactly, like Abe Fortas.

In comment 12814640 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 12813872 Deej said: Quote: I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I hope this thread gets around to William O. Douglas. Based on the above, I'm eagerly waiting to hear your comments.

Typical njm move: open a partisan line of questioning through the veneer of a genuinely curious question.

The moves and countermoves here have become staid.

motivate a question about William O Douglas other than a desire to probe the consistency of Deej's dislike of judicial celebrity? Shall we extend the analysis even further back and see if it also applies to Brandeis, that would-be Robin Hood of the Progressive movement? That early artist of the provocative dissent?

and constitutional law at the Supreme Court level always end up playing out and being described in political terms of liberal and conservative. If you are an Originalist for example, more of your decisions will likely favor the Republican Party, but not all. Some should please liberals too. Yet our judges get described not in jurisprudence terms like Originalist or Pragmatist, but in political ones - and these are not the same thing.

Every institution, from the courts to science to the media is co-opted by the partisan political process and it saddens me greatly about this country.

only rich white males have all rights given in 1776.

In comment 12814601 buford said:

Quote:

In comment 12814589 moespree said: Quote: Lame duck President McCain would make an appointment that would be rejected until the new President takes over in 2017. There were two separate occasions where the GOP and citizens of the country could have prevented Obama from making Supreme Court decisions. "Elections have consequences" isn't just a pretty little saying. Well the people elected R Senators, so that has consequences too. Balance of powers and all that.

But their job is to not find ways to obstruct a full running Supreme Court. The SC is basically sitting at 4-4, if a qualified moderate is put up for nomination, it behooves this country to have a full SC, not political points for a party

It's the end of the world!!!!!

Would President Obama be a "lame duck" if the US were attacked today by a foreign enemy? I wonder, would Republicans say, "well, sure, ISIS attacked us, but let's wait until after the election to respond because, you know, Obama is a lame duck President and the American people deserve the right to vote"?

I know that there are several "liberal" justices that were nominated and expected to be conservative by Republican presidents. Souter and Stevens come to mind. In relatively recent history, are there any justices that were expected to be liberal and turned out to be conservative or right leaning?

In comment 12814704 buford said:

Quote:

It's the end of the world!!!!!

When they do it at the cost of what is best for the country, its a fucked up mindset. Thus why you understand their rational so well

Ala Booker, Kloubacher. That'd be fascinating.