News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Next SCOTUS retiree/appointee?

Started by Martinus, October 19, 2014, 03:22:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martinus

Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:

Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?

Will the Republicans in the Senate be able to block/filibuster Obama's appointee or does it work differently from other appointees (such as ambassadors)?

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?

Doesn't really matter, it will always tilt to the right, as liberal judges insist on retiring during conservative presidencies, fucking shit up.

QuoteWill the Republicans in the Senate be able to block/filibuster Obama's appointee or does it work differently from other appointees (such as ambassadors)?

Still goes through the same bullshit.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2014, 03:31:40 PM
Still goes through the same bullshit.

True, but at least in the case of SC nominees the public is paying attention. Eventually there will be a vote unless the nominee pulls out.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Admiral Yi

Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?

I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.

DGuller

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?

I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.
Unspoken rules are meant to be broken when the stakes are high.  Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly.  Then again, how badly do they really want the fifth abortion vote?  To me it seems like a very useful journey and a very dreadful destination for them politically.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:01:41 AM
Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly.

Not really clear to me how they could expect to do that with Obama making the nominations.

DGuller

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:06:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:01:41 AM
Republicans will be looking at cementing the conservative hegemony on the bench if a liberal justice times her death badly.

Not really clear to me how they could expect to do that with Obama making the nominations.
What if she dies in May 2016?

Viking

to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Admiral Yi

Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.

DGuller

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.
Does it have to be either/or?

Viking

Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2014, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Either it's a Democrat nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans cementing etc. doesn't make sense, or it's a Republican nominating, in which case your comment about Republicans breaking the unspoken rule on filibustering doesn't make sense.
Does it have to be either/or?

President Bernie Sanders?
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Eddie Teach

He's thinking the Republicans filibuster long enough to get a Republican nominating. Of course, in this scenario the voters have the power to validate the stratagem or not. Unless the justice dies during the lame duck term, but Congress never works that fast anyway.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

DGuller

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2014, 01:28:27 AM
He's thinking the Republicans filibuster long enough to get a Republican nominating. Of course, in this scenario the voters have the power to validate the stratagem or not. Unless the justice dies during the lame duck term, but Congress never works that fast anyway.
:cheers:

Tonitrus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?

I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.

Have we all forgotten Robert Bork?  :(

Grinning_Colossus

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 20, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
Has a SC nominee ever been filibustered?

I was going to say Harry Reid, that great friend of Yucca Mountain, exempted legislation and SC and cabinet nominations when he invoked the nukular option, but there might be an unspoken rule that SC nominees aren't blocked.

Have we all forgotten Robert Bork?  :(

He was rejected by majority vote, not filibustered.
Quis futuit ipsos fututores?