Languish.org

Died in his sleep.

RIP :(

Wiki:

QuoteAppointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.[3] And then he died.

Wow, that is going to be huge.

Obama gets to replace a Conservative stalwart on the bench...

Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2016, 05:20:42 PM
Wow, that is going to be huge.

Obama gets to replace a Conservative stalwart on the bench...

I'm not familiar with the appointing process so I'm probably wrong, but can't the Reps just block any Obama nominee until after the election?

holy fuck

Damn

Does he? It would be unprecedented (I think), but I can't imagine this Senate confirming anyone. Or they'd require Obama to nominate someone who essentially would be a Republican nominee. In that scenario Obama probably just refuses to do that and it stays at eight until the election, with the hope (by Obama) being a Democratic Senate majority lets the next President nominate someone.

It may even be possible Obama could, because IIRC the new Congress from the 2016 elections starts on like 1/3, while Obama's Presidency runs until the 20th.

RIP. That bastard could write. :(

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2016, 05:26:07 PM
Does he? It would be unprecedented (I think), but I can't imagine this Senate confirming anyone. Or they'd require Obama to nominate someone who essentially would be a Republican nominee. In that scenario Obama probably just refuses to do that and it stays at eight until the election, with the hope (by Obama) being a Democratic Senate majority lets the next President nominate someone.

It may even be possible Obama could, because IIRC the new Congress from the 2016 elections starts on like 1/3, while Obama's Presidency runs until the 20th.

They need to confirm someone. It will become a major political issue if they don't, and it won't cut in the Republicans favor. Republicans in Congress may hate to see a conservative vote go liberal, but what they care about more are their own seats.

I often disagreed with him, but he was a good writer and his opinions were usually enjoyable to read. RIP.

I'll be damned. :(   

What would they do if one of the judges gets Alzheimer or so but refuses to leave the bench?

The US Supreme Court seems to be pretty unique as far as democratic institutions go in having its members serve for life.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--arDqrpoI--%2Fc_scale%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_800%2Fsh4uu0edboacrujasnwf.jpg&hash=99d0815a26858ccf0c6daf079c28904b084d0785)

Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2016, 05:43:50 PM
What would they do if one of the judges gets Alzheimer or so but refuses to leave the bench?

The US Supreme Court seems to be pretty unique as far as democratic institutions go in having its members serve for life.

Short answer is they can be impeached by the House and then removed from office by the Senate. In practice this hasn't been done for "being incapable." But that's what might happen if a justice had a confirmed mental defect that affected their ability to rule on cases rationally and refused to step down, it could (maybe) unite a bipartisan group in the Senate to remove the justice. It only requires a majority vote of the House to impeach, but to convict/remove requires 2/3rds of the Senators so it needs broad bipartisan support.

There's only I believe been two long term "incapacities" in the Supreme Court's history. Justice Joseph McKenna had a stroke in 1915, and stayed on the bench until 1925, it was a serious, debilitating stroke that significantly impacted his ability to fulfill his duties. But he had enough cognition that he could still be somewhat involved and he didn't want to step down. He was never forced out by another branch, but Chief Justice Taft (the same Taft that had been President) was able to privately pressure him to retire in 1925.

Justice William Douglas (the longest serving supreme court justice at 36 years, he was appointed at 40) had a stroke in his 70s that limited his physical mobility but spared at least a decent bit of his mental faculties. He insisted on continuing his duties, but the rest of the justices told him that they considered him unfit and they all agreed that they would defer ruling on any case where he was the "swing vote." This lead him to retire (during the Ford Administration.) He declined even more afterward, and actually tried to continue to participate in the business of the Supreme Court even though he had been retired and his replacement (John Paul Stevens) had already been appointed to replace him.

Douglas asserted he had "Senior Judge" privileges and was allowed to continue weighing in on opinions and deliberations, but not vote. But that isn't actually true, judges in the Federal system are able to claim a "Senior Judge" status, which lets them basically work as "at large" judges throughout the Federal court system, at a reduced caseload (they have to do in a year the typical three month case load of a full time judge.) But this applies to district/appellate courts, there is no senior judge status in the business of the Supreme Court. One of the recent SCOTUS retirees, IIRC Sandra Day O'Connor, has exercised this role, and fills in at appellate court levels regularly.

Wow.  Shocking.  He didn't seem that old.  I didn't agree with him very often, but always enjoyed reading his opinions.  He was a smart guy.

I agree with AR that this position will be filled.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to be going into the election with the charge that they are refusing to execute their constitutional duties in order to seize partisan political gain.  I think that Obama has to pick a fairly moderate candidate so as to force the Republicans to vote on the nomination.  He can't afford a left-wing Bork.

Not just moderate. The candidate will also need to be highly respected and old.

The country needs a transgendered justice.

RIP Scalia.

Obama should appoint himself. ;)

You know what would be awesome, even if it won't happen?

If he appointed himself, and with the confirmation resigned and let Biden finish his term. He is qualified.

edit--maybe I shouldn't glaze over reading Tim's posts.  :P

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2016, 06:41:24 PM
You know what would be awesome, even if it won't happen?

If he appointed himself, and with the confirmation resigned and let Biden finish his term. He is qualified.

Bad idea to appoint a smoker.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2016, 06:39:36 PM
RIP Scalia.

Obama should appoint himself. ;)

:yes: He'd be decreasing the size of the government. Checkmate, Republicans.

QuoteCruz, Rubio, McConnell insist that new president fill Scalia seat on Supreme Court

GREENVILLE, S.C. – GOP presidential contenders are arguing for the Senate to run out the clock on President Barack Obama, depriving him the chance to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death today.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees.

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said in a statement.

Nearly a quarter of Obama's second term remains – just over 11 months.

But with news of Scalia's death less than an hour old, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have already asserted that the next president, not Obama, fill the job.

"We owe it to him, and the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement," Cruz tweeted.

Said Rubio: "The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear."

It wasn't exactly clear if they were calling on Obama to refrain from naming a new justice, or on the Senate to block any nominee.

In reality, Obama would have a hard time getting a nominee confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate. The implication from Cruz and Rubio — and McConnell — seemed to be that he shouldn't even bother to try.

The stance raises a question for a would-be president: At what point in a president's four-year term does there come a tipping point after which nominees should be ignored and rejected?

Eleven months is a long cooling off period.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called for Obama to name a replacement right away, tweeting that "The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible."

Republicans have accused Obama of overstepping his authority with executive orders on immigration and other matters.

The authority to nominate federal judges, however, clearly rests with the president, subject of course to the Senate's "advice and consent."

Both of Texas' senators, Cruz and John Cornyn, the deputy majority leader, serve on the Judiciary Committee, which screens nominees to the high court and lower federal benches.

That's a lot of bullshit.

I think that we owe it to him, and the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President after this next one names the new justice.  Four years and eleven months is too short a time for the American people to  have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. 

This is particularly good news for Trump if he wins the nomination.  I think there would have been quite a few conservatives who would have sat out the election and not voted if he won, but with a new justice on the table, they will feel like they have no choice but to support him. And not just at the polls, he'll have a lot more volunteers and donations.

Trump would nominate Nancy Grace tho.

The republicans really do hate democracy dont they

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2016, 07:05:16 PM
This is particularly good news for Trump if he wins the nomination.  I think there would have been quite a few conservatives who would have sat out the election and not voted if he won, but with a new justice on the table, they will feel like they have no choice but to support him. And not just at the polls, he'll have a lot more volunteers and donations.

But how much do they trust him? I think this gives them more reason to stop him in the primary.

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 13, 2016, 06:51:38 PM
That's a lot of bullshit.

Of course it is, the people did have a choice and who nominates the next Judge.  They made that choice back in 2012.

Surprised Clarence Thomas didn't die too.  Must be his first dissent from Scalia since '94.

Holy crap.  He picked quit a time to die.

Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2016, 09:38:46 PM
Holy crap.  He picked quit a time to die.

I picked quit once too.

You only get to quit when you die.

You know, if his fellow hunters weren't so damn anxious to get out there, and had checked to see if the 79 year old who was complaining about feeling ill the previous evening was okay he might still be alive.

For diversity reasons, Obama might nominate an Asian-American.

For trolling reasons, Obama should nominate a Muslim. :D

I don't think Asians have enough group identity as Asians for patronage to work.  I don't think that when a Chinese-American hears about a Japanese-American being appointed to whatever that they think "one of us!"

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
I don't think Asians have enough group identity as Asians for patronage to work.  I don't think that when a Chinese-American hears about a Japanese-American being appointed to whatever that they think "one of us!"

Indian-Americans seem the fast growing cohesive, rich, and powerful of the Asians in America now.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/141712-who-is-sri-srinivasan-antonin-scalias-possible-replacement-is-a-renowned-judge

This guy might be nominee.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fgetty%2F166233576.jpg%3Fw%3D684%26amp%3Bh%3D513%26amp%3Bfit%3Dcrop%26amp%3Bcrop%3Dfaces%26amp%3Bauto%3Dformat%26amp%3Bq%3D70&hash=937e3fbddf85eae2b837c209b654eae6dd574037)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
I don't think Asians have enough group identity as Asians for patronage to work.  I don't think that when a Chinese-American hears about a Japanese-American being appointed to whatever that they think "one of us!"

That might be a generational thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
I don't think Asians have enough group identity as Asians for patronage to work.  I don't think that when a Chinese-American hears about a Japanese-American being appointed to whatever that they think "one of us!"

The immigrants themselves sure, but I thought their kids assimilated into a broad Asian American group.

Or we could just pick the best person for the job.

I'm not sure a Mongoloid is a good choice for that position.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
Surprised Clarence Thomas didn't die too.  Must be his first dissent from Scalia since '94.

:lol:

I don't believe Scalia was a fan of Long Dong Silver either.

Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2016, 01:14:27 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
I don't think Asians have enough group identity as Asians for patronage to work.  I don't think that when a Chinese-American hears about a Japanese-American being appointed to whatever that they think "one of us!"

Indian-Americans seem the fast growing cohesive, rich, and powerful of the Asians in America now.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/141712-who-is-sri-srinivasan-antonin-scalias-possible-replacement-is-a-renowned-judge

This guy might be nominee.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fgetty%2F166233576.jpg%3Fw%3D684%26amp%3Bh%3D513%26amp%3Bfit%3Dcrop%26amp%3Bcrop%3Dfaces%26amp%3Bauto%3Dformat%26amp%3Bq%3D70&hash=937e3fbddf85eae2b837c209b654eae6dd574037)

I definitely don't believe you have any Asian unity in the US acrossie Indians and East Asians.

Looks like Obama will move and name a successor right away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/politics/obama-to-nominate-scalia-successor-over-republicans-objections.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=ts-item%201_of_4&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

Lots of my liberal Facebook friends are trolling with the possibility of an upcoming Democrat president nominating Obama. Just for fun's sake, is there precedent of a president sitting in the Supreme Court?

Taft was Chief Justice.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 14, 2016, 05:56:30 AM
Taft was Chief Justice.

And then eaten by wolves.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
Surprised Clarence Thomas didn't die too.  Must be his first dissent from Scalia since '94.

:lol:

Quote from: celLots of my liberal Facebook friends are trolling with the possibility of an upcoming Democrat president nominating Obama. Just for fun's sake, is there precedent of a president sitting in the Supreme Court?

Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

I'd thought that this was basically a good thing--Scalia wasn't like Kennedy, he was basically evil and if his dissents had held sway, America would be even worse--but someone mentioned upthread that this could motivate "light" Republicans, disaffected with whoever ends up being the nominee (the frontrunners being viscerally abominable in some way or another, like Lovecraftian beasts, rather than merely diabolical, like the conventional Christian Satan upon which most respectable Republican politicians are based).  That's kind of bad news, though it fortunately cuts both ways and motivates Democrats (and centrists who disliked Scalia's social conservatism and general shittiness) to vote too.

The further bad, but not as bad, news is that if the Senate stays Republican, as it possibly (likely?) will, but the Presidency goes to Sanders or Clinton, then there's a potential for a eight-person court for three or five more years.  I suggest this isn't as ridiculous as it sounds on its face, because few individual Republican senators will face a backlash for not confirming but may fear being primaried if they did confirm.  The upside of this is that a 4-4 split results in the affirmation of the lower courts' decision, and the circuits lean lefter, to the best of my knowledge.

There's also the possibility of one of the liberals dying, evening out the balance, and at that point a de facto 7-person court for years and years isn't impossible, leaving us in the same situation as before, only without Scalia's injection of color into the right wing of the court's depredations upon the American people.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 06:38:55 PM
The country needs a transgendered justice.

You know, you just used to be an economic conservative.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
Surprised Clarence Thomas didn't die too.  Must be his first dissent from Scalia since '94.

:lol:

Quote from: celLots of my liberal Facebook friends are trolling with the possibility of an upcoming Democrat president nominating Obama. Just for fun's sake, is there precedent of a president sitting in the Supreme Court?

Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

I'd thought that this was basically a good thing--Scalia wasn't like Kennedy, he was basically evil and if his dissents had held sway, America would be even worse--but someone mentioned upthread that this could motivate "light" Republicans, disaffected with whoever ends up being the nominee (the frontrunners being viscerally abominable in some way or another, like Lovecraftian beasts, rather than merely diabolical, like the conventional Christian Satan upon which most respectable Republican politicians are based).  That's kind of bad news, though it fortunately cuts both ways and motivates Democrats (and centrists who disliked Scalia's social conservatism and general shittiness) to vote too.

The further bad, but not as bad, news is that if the Senate stays Republican, as it possibly (likely?) will, but the Presidency goes to Sanders or Clinton, then there's a potential for a eight-person court for three or five more years.  I suggest this isn't as ridiculous as it sounds on its face, because few individual Republican senators will face a backlash for not confirming but may fear being primaried if they did confirm.  The upside of this is that a 4-4 split results in the affirmation of the lower courts' decision, and the circuits lean lefter, to the best of my knowledge.

There's also the possibility of one of the liberals dying, evening out the balance, and at that point a de facto 7-person court for years and years isn't impossible, leaving us in the same situation as before, only without Scalia's injection of color into the right wing of the court's depredations upon the American people.

I think we have enough eeyores on this board already. Am I right?

It is trolling because no Democrat president would waste political capital trying to shove Justice Obama down a Republican Senate's throat.

18 months ago the Democrat establishment was all "we don't really like Obama anyway", for the midterms too.

It would be glorious to see justice Obama tried. Just for the rage of the right and their cries of "OMG he is trying to keep power! Evik commie nazi jew Muslim terrorist! "

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

Quote from: Tyr on February 14, 2016, 08:16:31 AM
It would be glorious to see justice Obama tried. Just for the rage of the right and their cries of "OMG he is trying to keep power! Evik commie nazi jew Muslim terrorist! "

While I would enjoy that greatly, "what pisses the other side the most" isn't usually the most desirable policy guide.

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

:blink:

Quote from: Jaron on February 14, 2016, 02:25:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

:blink:

:huh:  One doesn't have to even ever have attended a law school (or any other school, for that matter) to become a Justice of the USSC.  One doesn't even need to be a citizen, or even an adult.  There are no stated qualifications whatsoever.

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

Quote from: Jaron on February 14, 2016, 02:25:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

:blink:

:huh:  One doesn't have to even ever have attended a law school (or any other school, for that matter) to become a Justice of the USSC.  One doesn't even need to be a citizen, or even an adult.  There are no stated qualifications whatsoever.

*ponders a new career move*  :hmm:

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

Quote from: Jaron on February 14, 2016, 02:25:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

:blink:

:huh:  One doesn't have to even ever have attended a law school (or any other school, for that matter) to become a Justice of the USSC.  One doesn't even need to be a citizen, or even an adult.  There are no stated qualifications whatsoever.

So even Ide could be a SC Justice!  :P

(sorry Ide, couldn't resist)

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 02:52:06 PM:huh:  One doesn't have to even ever have attended a law school (or any other school, for that matter) to become a Justice of the USSC.  One doesn't even need to be a citizen, or even an adult.  There are no stated qualifications whatsoever.

Does one have to be a person?

Quote from: Maximus on February 14, 2016, 04:24:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 02:52:06 PM:huh:  One doesn't have to even ever have attended a law school (or any other school, for that matter) to become a Justice of the USSC.  One doesn't even need to be a citizen, or even an adult.  There are no stated qualifications whatsoever.

Does one have to be a person?

Judging from Thomas, no.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F002%2F135%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=c228c7e3c49b4de153917c9864238a1e87dd9f74)

Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F002%2F135%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=c228c7e3c49b4de153917c9864238a1e87dd9f74)

It's Marti.

Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F002%2F135%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=c228c7e3c49b4de153917c9864238a1e87dd9f74)

QFT

Interesting, I knew about Scalia's friendship with the notorious RBG, but I didn't know about his friendship with Kagan, let alone that he suggested her nomination.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html)

QuoteDavid Axelrod: A surprising request from Justice Scalia

By David Axelrod, CNN Senior Political Commentator

Updated 2355 GMT (0755 HKT) February 14, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

(CNN)—When the shocking news of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing hit Saturday night, my mind raced back to a White House Correspondents Association dinner seven years ago, when we were seated together.

David Axelrod

We bantered about my hometown of Chicago, where he had taught law before ascending to the bench. He opined on wine and music and generally lived up to his reputation as a man who told and enjoyed a good story.

And then our conversation took an unexpected turn.

Justice David Souter, Scalia's longtime colleague on the court, had just announced his retirement, creating a vacancy for President Obama to fill. Scalia figured that as senior adviser to the new president, I might have some influence on the decision -- or at least enough to pass along a message.

"I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."


A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again.

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

I was surprised that a member of the court would so bluntly propose a nominee, and intrigued that it was Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean who was appointed solicitor general by Obama to represent the government before the Supreme Court. Though she had worked on policy in the Clinton administration and had a reputation for pragmatism, Kagan plainly would be a liberal in the context of the court.

Later, I learned that Scalia and Kagan were friends, though I suspect she would have been as surprised as I was at the brazenness of Scalia's suggestion.

Each was a graduate of Harvard Law School and had taught at the University of Chicago Law School, though in different eras. They were of different generations, he the son of an Italian immigrant, she a Jew from New York City's left-leaning West Side. But they shared an intellectual rigor and a robust sense of humor. And if Scalia could not have a philosophical ally in the next court appointee, he had hoped, at least, for one with the heft to give him a good, honest fight.

Kagan didn't get that nomination. The President instead chose Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court.



But when another vacancy arose a year later with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama did nominate Kagan, whose friendship with Scalia would grow in the years to come, even as they differed, sometimes sharply, on issues before them.

During her confirmation meetings with senators, Kagan had vowed to go hunting to allay their concerns about her cultural awareness on the issue of guns. When she joined the court, she asked her friend, Scalia, to take her. The two, who occasionally shot intellectual darts at each other on paper, became regular, if unlikely, hunting partners.

The Supreme Court is a singular institution in our system: lifetime appointees, powerful in their impact but uniquely opaque in their process of arriving at decisions.

We have become inured to the animus that characterizes the relationship between many of our elected officials in these highly partisan times. But members of the court, free from the pressures of running for office, relate to each other in a different way.

So much so that a conservative lion would lobby the President's adviser for his liberal friend. Thank you, Justice Scalia, for your service to our country.

Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F002%2F135%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=c228c7e3c49b4de153917c9864238a1e87dd9f74)

:lol:

I meant that he is a braindead idiot who always votes with Scalia.

Because they agree on shit. But of course the black man couldn't come up with those ideas on his own.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 01:03:46 AM

Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F002%2F135%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=c228c7e3c49b4de153917c9864238a1e87dd9f74)

:lol:

I meant that he is a braindead idiot who always votes with Scalia.

Ok, so we know that Scalia and Thomas often vote together.  How do you know who follows who? 

Quote from: Monoriu on February 15, 2016, 01:33:21 AM
Ok, so we know that Scalia and Thomas often vote together.  How do you know who follows who?

Thomas is famously silent during oral arguments and doesn't write many, if any, opinions.

The winds of conspiracy in the air. It looks like Obama had Scalia murdered.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 02:02:32 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 15, 2016, 01:33:21 AM
Ok, so we know that Scalia and Thomas often vote together.  How do you know who follows who?

Thomas is famously silent during oral arguments and doesn't write many, if any, opinions.

He could be ghost writing for Scalia. Would make sense for a white guy to take the credit for a black guy's work.

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

And this is as asinine as any random Languish post you could name.  There are no substantive Constitutional qualifications for any government posts--there are no legal qualifications for many private jobs as well--and yet, somehow, people are able to talk meaningfully about whether or not individuals are "qualified" to hold those jobs, and to what degree.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2016, 04:59:40 AM

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2016, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Dunno how that constitutes trolling.  He's certainly qualified, and as folks have mentioned, Taft served.

He's as qualified as any random politician you could name.  I mean, there are no qualifications, so everybody is qualified.  Obama is as ready to be a SC Justice in 2016 as he was to be president in 2008.  Which is to say, not much at all.

And this is as asinine as any random Languish post you could name.  There are no substantive Constitutional qualifications for any government posts--there are no legal qualifications for many private jobs as well--and yet, somehow, people are able to talk meaningfully about whether or not individuals are "qualified" to hold those jobs, and to what degree.

You have to be 25 to serve in the House, 30 to serve in the Senate and 35 to serve as President.

I've read the constitution, Tim.  It's why I said "substantive."

Did you know that the president also has to be a natural born citizen?

Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2016, 05:12:38 AM
Did you know that the president also has to be a natural born citizen?

Are you sure?!

Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2016, 04:59:40 AM
And this is as asinine as any random Languish post you could name.  There are no substantive Constitutional qualifications for any government posts--there are no legal qualifications for many private jobs as well--and yet, somehow, people are able to talk meaningfully about whether or not individuals are "qualified" to hold those jobs, and to what degree.

If there are, indeed, unofficial qualifications for the USSC as you assert, then there is no way Obama is "qualified" (let alone "certainly qualified") by them to sit on the court. 

You can't have it both ways.  Either Obama is "qualified" because there are no qualifications, or is is unqualified because there are unofficial qualifications.  And don't give me Taft;  Taft was a highly-respected judge and the US Solicitor-General before he went into politics.  It was his term as POTUS that was out of context, not his term as CJUSSC.

Quote from: Jaron on February 15, 2016, 03:16:35 AM
The winds of conspiracy in the air. It looks like Obama had Scalia murdered.

Well that goes without saying man. Open your eyes sheeple!

(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12705451_1144391948927407_65850217440723453_n.jpg?oh=1a7788e8efad725f25683b53eec7be63&oe=572ED187)

Yeah, Taft only became POTUS because uber popular Theodore Roosevelt crowned him heir. The same guy basically took the White House away from him four years later when he determined he didn't like how Taft was running the country--in one of (maybe the most) shameful performances ever by an incumbent President Taft got fewer electoral votes than a third party candidate, and only 8 total.

So essentially grumbler is 100% right on Obama, by the "unofficial qualifications" that seem to "matter", Obama is not qualified. He's less qualified than Harriet Miers--whose nomination was doomed when even a portion of the normally compliant Republicans in the Senate during the Bush Administration started to turn against her.

Harriet Miers like Obama had almost no trial or case experience, but additionally had almost no real important legal positions in government either--she was basically hired from a Texas law firm for which she had never done any real case work to being a White House Staff Secretary, and some years later was promoted to White House Legal Counsel. After her failed nomination there came a time when that job needed to actually do real legal work, and Bush's Chief of Staff successfully lobbied to have her fired--due to her lack of ability to do said work.

If we accept the "unofficial qualifications", in the modern era most SCOTUS justices have either had careers as lower court judges or a combination of strong litigation/case experience in private practice combined with important government legal posts (like Solicitor General.) Of the current 8 all were judges prior to being nominated other than Kagan (and just deceased Scalia had been a federal judge prior to appointment as well.) Kagan is the closest to being like Obama, except her career is like Obama's on steroids. The "weight" of her career was in academia, but she was a super heavyweight in academia, rising to Dean of Harvard Law School, keep in mind Obama was essentially a part time law school professor once he entered the Illinois State Senate only a couple years into his teaching career. In fact his title was only ever Lecturer and then Senior Lecturer, he wasn't a part of the tenure track because he was never a full time academic, he had a job at a civil rights firm the ran coterminous with some of his teaching career and his career in the Illinois State Senate. However his law firm work only involved his name being on one case in the early 90s, and he mostly seemed to be a very light work load "adviser" to the firm after that.

Note I'm not bashing Obama's overall career, he was working primarily to get ahead in politics, and his position as essentially a consultant at a law firm and a some time lecturer at University of Chicago were essentially side jobs probably done out of a mixture of being personally interesting to him and providing him some supplemental income since State legislators don't make good money. He ended up as a U.S. Senator then President, so his career in the field he actually cared about turned out essentially as good as possible. But in the modern era it'd be very odd and against the "unofficial qualifications" to name a guy who was only ever a part time part of the legal profession, who wasn't involved in any serious case work, who had never worked as a judge, held no government offices relating to the legal system to the high court.

Even while Kagan's career was weighted to academia, she worked in the Clinton Administration for some years as a lawyer and wrote a lot of legally notable memos on various issues. Further, in her academic career she became a respected published scholar in the field of law--she wasn't just a lecturer, she was a major legal thinker with lots of published papers under her name. I think people often assume Barack was a full professor of law akin to Kagan, but he wasn't, he didn't do much (if any) legal scholarship, he was basically a guy who had a light course schedule in addition to two other jobs he held at the same time.

QuoteObama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. "These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?" Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. "I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options." Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 03:02:47 PM

QuoteObama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. "These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?" Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. "I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options." Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Sounds like the rumors are true--he is going to appoint himself!  :w00t:

Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 03:02:47 PM

QuoteObama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. "These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?" Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. "I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options." Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Most unsubtle, unfunny Onion article ever, or in second place?

Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 11:25:10 AM
(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12705451_1144391948927407_65850217440723453_n.jpg?oh=1a7788e8efad725f25683b53eec7be63&oe=572ED187)

It seems that appointing judges in the last year of a presidential term can result in some very good choices  :hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 03:10:20 PM

It seems that appointing judges in the last year of a presidential term can result in some very good choices  :hmm:

Not all of them were in the last year of a presidential term. They also included mid term appointments in the list.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 15, 2016, 03:12:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 03:10:20 PM

It seems that appointing judges in the last year of a presidential term can result in some very good choices  :hmm:

Not all of them were in the last year of a presidential term. They also included mid term appointments in the list.

You ruined all my fun  :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 03:13:13 PM

You ruined all my fun  :(

Sorry, but you should know by now that if there is one thing languish loves it is a chance to be pedantic.  :P

Next Supreme Court justice if the Senate blocks and Trump or Cruz is elected:


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Sarah_Palin_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg/800px-Sarah_Palin_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg)

When was the last time a nominee was not confirmed on purely philosophical grounds, as opposed to dirty laundry, as in Bork's case?

Das ding ding an sich?

He had a pilla on his head

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 03:20:27 PM
When was the last time a nominee was not confirmed on purely philosophical grounds, as opposed to dirty laundry, as in Bork's case?

Bork wasn't nominated because of his illegal and unethical actions during Watergate.

Nixon's appointee Harrold Carswell was rejected due to his history as a known segregationist and white supremacy sympathizer in his early years.  I'd consider that philosophical grounds.

And yeah, Bork paid more for being the Last Man Standing during the Saturday Night Massacre than he did for his legal philosophy.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 09:29:25 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 03:20:27 PM
When was the last time a nominee was not confirmed on purely philosophical grounds, as opposed to dirty laundry, as in Bork's case?

Bork wasn't nominated because of his illegal and unethical actions during Watergate.

That was Yi's point.  Bork had dirty laundry, which is why he was blocked.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 16, 2016, 11:07:16 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 09:29:25 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 03:20:27 PM
When was the last time a nominee was not confirmed on purely philosophical grounds, as opposed to dirty laundry, as in Bork's case?

Bork wasn't nominated because of his illegal and unethical actions during Watergate.

That was Yi's point.  Bork had dirty laundry, which is why he was blocked.

How can a nominee not have been nominated?

Bork getting borked was more than just Watergate payback.  Ideology had something to do with it.  He was very vocal, very influential, very political.  He made a convenient target for Senate Democrats looking to take shots at the administration.  Biden was the head of the judiciary committee at the time and a leading candidate for President in 88 (although the Kinnock thing knocked hin out soon afterwards)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2016, 10:17:07 AM
And yeah, Bork paid more for being the Last Man Standing during the Saturday Night Massacre than he did for his legal philosophy.

I disagree.  I think that Bork's rejection of the Ninth Amendment's stance on un-enumerated rights was far more damaging than his actions during the Nixon Presidency.  Bork had even Republican senators voting against him, and they weren't interested in punishing him for the SNM.  Joe Biden did a decent job of keeping the hearings focused on judicial philosophy rather than political grandstanding.

Bork was a bad nominee and Reagan should have known better than to nominate him.

I'm not convinced Bork was nominated by Reagan, this was 1987 and Reagan was always a hands off President, with early stages of Alzheimer's I doubt he really had any involvement in the process.

I think Kennedy was nominated by Reagan in November of the year before Presidential elections, and then confirmed by the Senate in the elections year.

Heh, just googled info on the Bork confirmation hearings; I had no idea that the "bork" Americanism stemmed from them.

Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
Heh, just googled info on the Bork confirmation hearings; I had no idea that the "bork" Americanism stemmed from them.

I assumed it came from the Swedish Chef on the Muppets.  :P

Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
Heh, just googled info on the Bork confirmation hearings; I had no idea that the "bork" Americanism stemmed from them.

Huh... I thought it came from mistyping "broken" as "borken".

Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2016, 05:44:09 PM

Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
Heh, just googled info on the Bork confirmation hearings; I had no idea that the "bork" Americanism stemmed from them.

I assumed it came from the Swedish Chef on the Muppets.  :P

The verb "to bork" comes from the nomination process (and is pretty much just a political term).  I think "bork!" as an exclamation does, indeed, come from the Swedish Chef.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2016, 06:20:34 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2016, 05:44:09 PM

Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
Heh, just googled info on the Bork confirmation hearings; I had no idea that the "bork" Americanism stemmed from them.

I assumed it came from the Swedish Chef on the Muppets.  :P

The verb "to bork" comes from the nomination process (and is pretty much just a political term).  I think "bork!" as an exclamation does, indeed, come from the Swedish Chef.

I know; I was making a lame joke confusing the two.  ;)

I keep seeing local on facebook say this is suspicious or "fishy".  Nothing raises the red flags like an overweight 79 year old man who was previously complaining that he was feeling badly dying in his sleep.

Are US Supreme Court Justices required to disclose their health conditions?  If not, then the possibility exists that he was in fact very ill before his death.  Just that the public didn't know about it. 

No, they aren't required to give out medical information.

Quote from: Monoriu on February 16, 2016, 10:48:45 PM
Are US Supreme Court Justices required to disclose their health conditions?  If not, then the possibility exists that he was in fact very ill before his death.  Just that the public didn't know about it.

That's precisely the story I read today.  Scalia was in fact having health issues (and considering that he was morbidly obese and 79 years old, no shit).

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 10:45:50 PM
I keep seeing local on facebook say this is suspicious or "fishy".  Nothing raises the red flags like an overweight 79 year old man who was previously complaining that he was feeling badly dying in his sleep.

Livia did it.

Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
That's precisely the story I read today.  Scalia was in fact having health issues (and considering that he was morbidly obese and 79 years old, no shit).

I don't think that trying to change the narrative to retroactively make him "morbidly obese" is going to reduce the amount of confusion and misinformation about what seems a very simple and easy-to-understand event.

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2016, 07:16:06 AM

Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
That's precisely the story I read today.  Scalia was in fact having health issues (and considering that he was morbidly obese and 79 years old, no shit).

I don't think that trying to change the narrative to retroactively make him "morbidly obese" is going to reduce the amount of confusion and misinformation about what seems a very simple and easy-to-understand event.

I didn't weigh him personally, but judging from one of the few full body shots out there, it's not at all a stretch to think that he topped a BMI of 35.  And I considered him morbidly obese long before he died, so if I am indeed mistaken about his weight, there is nothing retroactive about that mistake.

He was obviously a fat guy, but "morbidly obese" seems a bit overkill. He was capable of moving around on his own.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
He was obviously a fat guy, but "morbidly obese" seems a bit overkill. He was capable of moving around on his own.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/highland/bariatric-surgery-center/questions/morbid-obesity.aspx

QuoteMorbid obesity is diagnosed by determining Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI is defined by the ratio of an individual's height to his or her weight. Normal BMI ranges from 20-25. See BMI on back panel. An individual is considered morbidly obese if he or she is 100 pounds over his/her ideal body weight, has a BMI of 40 or more, or 35 or more and experiencing obesity-related health conditions, such as high blood pressure or diabetes.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 10:45:50 PM
I keep seeing local on facebook say this is suspicious or "fishy".  Nothing raises the red flags like an overweight 79 year old man who was previously complaining that he was feeling badly dying in his sleep.

Figured this would happen when they said on the news that there would be no autopsy, especially when they also reported that he was pronounced dead over the phone.

I just take that as evidence that Valmy is right about Texas being pretty fucked up, not as any indication there is anything suspicious about the death itself.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
He was obviously a fat guy, but "morbidly obese" seems a bit overkill. He was capable of moving around on his own.

The events of the past few days do provide some support to the "morbid" adjective.

He was also "morbidly" old then.

Quote from: dps on February 17, 2016, 10:48:10 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 10:45:50 PM
I keep seeing local on facebook say this is suspicious or "fishy".  Nothing raises the red flags like an overweight 79 year old man who was previously complaining that he was feeling badly dying in his sleep.

Figured this would happen when they said on the news that there would be no autopsy, especially when they also reported that he was pronounced dead over the phone.

I just take that as evidence that Valmy is right about Texas being pretty fucked up, not as any indication there is anything suspicious about the death itself.

Eh, I suspect that sort of thing is normal particularly where they have an elected coroner (who thought that position should be elected?).  He was an old man, and old men die.  Thank God it wasn't some long drawn out processes lasting months.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2016, 12:25:47 AM

Quote from: dps on February 17, 2016, 10:48:10 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2016, 10:45:50 PM
I keep seeing local on facebook say this is suspicious or "fishy".  Nothing raises the red flags like an overweight 79 year old man who was previously complaining that he was feeling badly dying in his sleep.

Figured this would happen when they said on the news that there would be no autopsy, especially when they also reported that he was pronounced dead over the phone.

I just take that as evidence that Valmy is right about Texas being pretty fucked up, not as any indication there is anything suspicious about the death itself.

Eh, I suspect that sort of thing is normal particularly where they have an elected coroner (who thought that position should be elected?).  He was an old man, and old men die.  Thank God it wasn't some long drawn out processes lasting months.

I think WV still has elected coroners, but state law says basically that whenever death occurs without a physician present, there has to be an autopsy.

Whoops

You can watch the video here
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094898/joe-biden-supreme-court

Quote

Joe Biden in 1992: Bush better not pick a Supreme Court nominee before the election

Updated by Dylan Matthews on February 22, 2016, 3:40 p.m. ET @dylanmatt [email protected] 


Well, this is awkward.

C-SPAN has resurfaced video of a floor speech delivered by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden on June 25, 1992. In it, Biden explicitly calls on then-President George H.W. Bush to not nominate anyone to fill whatever Supreme Court vacancies should arise between then and the presidential election in November, and suggests that if Bush did put forth a nominee, the Judiciary Committee might not hold hearings.

That is, of course, exactly the argument that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his allies have been making ever since Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13 — that President Obama should let the seat stay vacant because it's an election year.

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I'm sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision, and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election.

Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee, and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Biden's comments since Scalia's death directly contradict his earlier stance. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio's Cathy Wurzer on February 18, Biden mocked the idea of waiting until after the election to appoint a nominee: "To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, 'God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we're not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half.'"

He sounded a similar note in an interview with Rachel Maddow, saying that Senate Republicans were only promising to block a nominee because they want to get "out ahead of Ted Cruz," and declaring, "We have a dysfunctional Congress now. We don't need an institutionally dysfunctional Supreme Court." Same goes for his interview with Politico's Michael Grunwald in which he noted, "There are a whole hell of a lot of people who Republicans who have already voted for" whom he thinks they should confirm again for the Court vacancy.

There did not turn out to be any vacancies in 1992, when Biden decried election year nominations. Two aging justices did wind up waiting to retire until Bill Clinton took office: the liberal Harry Blackmun, and the mostly conservative but JFK-appointed Byron White. And Clinton's picks did change the Court. While Stephen Breyer is about as liberal as Blackmun, Clinton replaced White with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is substantially to White's left. (White dissented in the case creating police Miranda warnings, and in Roe v. Wade, which he called "an exercise in raw judicial power.")




Biden can protest that he was merely speaking hypothetically, and that June is further along in the campaign season than February. And, of course, perhaps he just changed his mind on the merits. But a skeptical observer could be forgiven for finding his change of heart rather convenient.

Update: Some liberal outlets are pushing back on this, focusing on a part later in the speech where Biden suggests some openness to a moderate nominee. That doesn't really change the substance of his other comments, but you could make the case that it means he was taking a more moderate view than McConnell is today. I personally don't buy it — he clearly seems to be talking about the next administration, not Bush — but watch for yourself:

 :lol:   Biden being an entertaining windbag, as always.

Internet really sucks for politicians.  :lol:

Bush Sr was always like "Noun, Verb, SC Nomination"

Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2016, 05:20:42 PM
Wow, that is going to be huge.

Obama gets to replace a Conservative stalwart on the bench...

No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe within his last 12 months in office.
I am sure 0bama will abide by this rule....

Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 02:23:46 AM
Internet really sucks for politicians.  :lol:

3rd greatest invention in human history, after writing and the printing press.

The internet, not politicians.....

Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 08:27:14 AM
No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe within his last 12 months in office.
I am sure 0bama will abide by this rule....

This cannot possibly be true. I cannot recall lots of extended periods with empty spots on the Supreme Court and there is certainly nothing in the Constitution demanding that. I am not even sure what the basis for this would be. Obama does not get to nominate the justices during the first 12 months of the next President's administration so why would the opposite apply? :hmm:

But I willing to concede if there is such a rule, though that strikes me as bizarre.

Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 08:27:14 AM

Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2016, 05:20:42 PM
Wow, that is going to be huge.

Obama gets to replace a Conservative stalwart on the bench...

No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe within his last 12 months in office.
I am sure 0bama will abide by this rule....

There is no such rule.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 08:40:39 AM

Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 08:27:14 AM
No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe within his last 12 months in office.
I am sure 0bama will abide by this rule....

This cannot possibly be true. I cannot recall lots of extended periods with empty spots on the Supreme Court and there is certainly nothing in the Constitution demanding that. I am not even sure what the basis for this would be. Obama does not get to nominate the justices during the first 12 months of the next President's administration so why would the opposite apply? :hmm:

But I willing to concede if there is such a rule, though that strikes me as bizarre.

There isn't of course.

This is just a made up thing so that obstructionist can pretend to stand on something sort of like principle, that 100% of the people claiming it know is completely crass opportunism.

I am always kind of amazed at the human capacity to lie to yourself. I don't really understand that - you know you are full of shit, you know everyone else knows you are full of shit, even the people who are agreeing with you know that you are full of shit, and that their agreement is based on shit, yet it still somehow makes everyone feel better to pretend like the shit is roses.

Bizarre.

It is certainly an unusual situation. The last time a justice was nominated during a Presidential election year was 1968(and then Congress did nothing and waited for Nixon's appointee). The last time a justice was nominated and confirmed was 1940. I suspect this is because most justices choose to retire early in terms when they know the President who will be appointing their successor.

Retire early? Bullet train?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 09:25:51 AM
It is certainly an unusual situation. The last time a justice was nominated during a Presidential election year was 1968(and then Congress did nothing and waited for Nixon's appointee). The last time a justice was nominated and confirmed was 1940. I suspect this is because most justices choose to retire early in terms when they know the President who will be appointing their successor.

Huh. I guess that does make sense. Only a minority of the SC justices actually die on the bench right?

Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 08:27:14 AM

Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2016, 05:20:42 PM
Wow, that is going to be huge.

Obama gets to replace a Conservative stalwart on the bench...

No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe within his last 12 months in office.
I am sure 0bama will abide by this rule....

The SCOTUS blog calls you a liar. Are you a liar or a fool?

QuoteThe first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when  President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.  The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.  On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two.  Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican.  On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.  A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year.  But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956.  With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.  The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court's liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year.  That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:36:02 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 09:25:51 AM
It is certainly an unusual situation. The last time a justice was nominated during a Presidential election year was 1968(and then Congress did nothing and waited for Nixon's appointee). The last time a justice was nominated and confirmed was 1940. I suspect this is because most justices choose to retire early in terms when they know the President who will be appointing their successor.

Huh. I guess that does make sense. Only a minority of the SC justices actually die on the bench right?

In recent time, yes.  In 19th century, dying on the bench was all the rage.

Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2016, 09:07:57 AM
There isn't of course.

This is just a made up thing so that obstructionist can pretend to stand on something sort of like principle, that 100% of the people claiming it know is completely crass opportunism.

I am always kind of amazed at the human capacity to lie to yourself. I don't really understand that - you know you are full of shit, you know everyone else knows you are full of shit, even the people who are agreeing with you know that you are full of shit, and that their agreement is based on shit, yet it still somehow makes everyone feel better to pretend like the shit is roses.

Bizarre.

I think that Siege knows that his "No American president has EVER appointed a supreme Court dufe [sic] within his last 12 months in office" lie is a lie (Abe Fortas says "hi!").  He just hopes that his readers are gullible enough to swallow the lie.

There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

One of problems with that view is, when is there ever a political off season in the US?

The other problem with that view is that it is completely self-serving bullshit.

And I would say the exact same thing if it was a Republican President. Or an independent, or whig, or Know-Nothing Party...oh wait, I already mentioned them.

I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

:lol:  The Onion, right?

I actually don't think siege knowingly lied, I think he's just a fool.

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

I'm not sure that they are actually making any hay with that quote, nor does it fully reflect what he was actually saying.  Bumper stickers like that reinforce the beliefs of the true believers, but don't convince anyone who isn't sure which side is right.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
He was obviously a fat guy, but "morbidly obese" seems a bit overkill. He was capable of moving around on his own.

Yeah, garbon is right on this, the standard for morbid obesity is such that most people who are 65+ lb overweight probably hit the BMI requirement, somewhat variable based on height. Just eyeballing Scalia I suspect he weighed 250-290lb, and he was only 5'7".

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Biden be a self serving d-bag in '92 hardly excuses them from being self-serving d-bags in 2016.

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 01:08:21 PM
I'm not sure that they are actually making any hay with that quote, nor does it fully reflect what he was actually saying.

Pshaw, he was saying the exact same thing that Republicans now are saying. The funny part is that there was no reason for him to say anything whatsoever on the subject.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Full throes? Oh FFS we have not even gotten to the convention yet. How long do these 'full throes' last?

If the election lasted three months or something sane I could agree to this. But the way it is now this is pure lunacy. I mean the new President will be sworn in on the 20th of January 2017, almost an entire year from now. Then we have to go through the entire nomination process while the new person is also selecting his or her entire cabinet and other positions. Are you honestly suggesting that things are more busy now than they will be then?

And bullshit that is not the Senate Republicans intention. The stakes are extremely high. If a Republican was President they would be rushing to get this process completed, and rightly so.

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Who was that exactly? Thomas was nominated in 1991. Whizzer did not retire until Bill had already been sworn in.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 02:40:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Who was that exactly? Thomas was nominated in 1991. Whizzer did not retire until Bill had already been sworn in.

He was speaking theoretically.

And who is Whizzer?

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 02:43:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 02:40:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Who was that exactly? Thomas was nominated in 1991. Whizzer did not retire until Bill had already been sworn in.

He was speaking theoretically.

And who is Whizzer?

Justice Byron 'Whizzer' White of course.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 02:40:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
I dunno - the GOP is making hay with a clip from none other than Joe Biden in '92 saying Senate democrats should hold off on any USSC nominees.

Who was that exactly? Thomas was nominated in 1991. Whizzer did not retire until Bill had already been sworn in.

It was a hypothetical.  :lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 02:44:51 PM
It was a hypothetical.  :lol:

And how many people supported his hypothetical idea? Has anybody besides Biden in 1992 suggested this be a thing?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 01:18:15 PM
Pshaw, he was saying the exact same thing that Republicans now are saying. The funny part is that there was no reason for him to say anything whatsoever on the subject.

No, he wasn't, but there's no sense arguing about it because all I have is evidence (like the fact that Biden was not, in fact, speaking about a vacancy at all, since there was no vacancy on the court).  I don't think mere facts will persuade you, so let's drop it.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 02:44:51 PM
It was a hypothetical.  :lol:

And how many people supported his hypothetical idea? Has anybody besides Biden in 1992 suggested this be a thing?

You mean any Democrats, I assume. I think most had the good sense not to open their mouths when there was no vacancy to fill and the argument could just as easily be turned around on them.

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 02:56:16 PM
No, he wasn't, but there's no sense arguing about it because all I have is evidence (like the fact that Biden was not, in fact, speaking about a vacancy at all, since there was no vacancy on the court).  I don't think mere facts will persuade you, so let's drop it.

Stop being dense. "If a Supreme court justice were to resign tomorrow or in the next several weeks..." He was discussing what he thought should happen if there was a vacancy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 03:01:44 PMStop being dense. "If a Supreme court justice were to resign tomorrow or in the next several weeks..." He was discussing what he thought should happen if there was a vacancy.

Stop being dense.  What he said was NOT "the exact same thing that Republicans now are saying."   You are now even admitting it.  You cannot have MY position. The Republicans are talking about an actual vacancy, not a hypothetical, and they are saying what action they plan to take, not what their personal preferences would be.

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 01:00:54 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

:lol:  The Onion, right?

Even better-- The Biden!  :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

:lol: Awesome.

You got me there Spicey  :blush:

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 03:19:47 PM
:lol: Awesome.

You got me there Spicey  :blush:

Very small consolation for Texas sweeping WVU in basketball this year :mellow:

Not the highest bar to find something stupid said by Joe Biden.
Of course it is also safe to say the same GOP usual suspects active then and now took differing positions as well.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 03:23:34 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 03:19:47 PM
:lol: Awesome.

You got me there Spicey  :blush:

Very small consolation for Texas sweeping WVU in basketball this year :mellow:

That was nice wasn't it?

I lost my shit last night watching Texas play Kansas State. Even the bottom feeders in this league are damn good.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 03:17:45 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 01:00:54 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

:lol:  The Onion, right?

Even better-- The Biden!  :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

Well played.  :bowler:

Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 03:44:24 PM
Well played.  :bowler:

He has done that before with Obama. I should have been ticked off that Spicey would never say something that stupid and figured it must have been a politician :weep:

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 03:09:12 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 03:01:44 PMStop being dense. "If a Supreme court justice were to resign tomorrow or in the next several weeks..." He was discussing what he thought should happen if there was a vacancy.

Stop being dense.  What he said was NOT "the exact same thing that Republicans now are saying."   You are now even admitting it.  You cannot have MY position. The Republicans are talking about an actual vacancy, not a hypothetical, and they are saying what action they plan to take, not what their personal preferences would be.

:jaron:

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 03:17:45 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 01:00:54 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
There should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. The president should follow the example of a majority of his predecessors and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be the Senate Republicans' intention.  It would be their pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

:lol:  The Onion, right?

Even better-- The Biden!  :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

Even better!  Was this before, or after, he was born in a small mining village in Wales?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 04:09:04 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2016, 03:09:12 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2016, 03:01:44 PMStop being dense. "If a Supreme court justice were to resign tomorrow or in the next several weeks..." He was discussing what he thought should happen if there was a vacancy.

Stop being dense.  What he said was NOT "the exact same thing that Republicans now are saying."   You are now even admitting it.  You cannot have MY position. The Republicans are talking about an actual vacancy, not a hypothetical, and they are saying what action they plan to take, not what their personal preferences would be.

:jaron:

:lol:  I told you that I knew it was useless to argue facts with you.  You think "if you touch my sister, I will kill you" and "you touched my sister, so now I'm going to just kill you" are "the exact same thing" because that fits your narrative.  Facts can't overcome determined ignorance.

GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

Also note that Biden is saying that the hypothetical President should wait until the election season is over, not defer to the next President - in other words, wait until after the elections to nominate.

Probably not realistic in practice, but still different from what the Republicans are doing now.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 23, 2016, 05:24:34 PM
Also note that Biden is saying that the hypothetical President should wait until the election season is over, not defer to the next President - in other words, wait until after the elections to nominate.

Probably not realistic in practice, but still different from what the Republicans are doing now.

In fact, makes even less sense given that if the party of the presidency changes post-election, why would a senate controlled by same part as incumbent president want to agree with any picks by the outgoing president? Makes more sense to have it occur before the election than after.

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

Is that really that surprising?  An outright refusal to govern, and to prevent anyone else from doing so is what the modern Republican does.

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

Well of course, they didn't even need to confirm that dude. But that is different from there being a rule.

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

Nah.  They'll have Obama's radical left dream nominee confirmed by summer's end.





And no, Yi.  I won't put any money on it.

I'm amused that you still believe that Obama is some radical leftist and that the Republicans are in the business of "caving" to the President.  I think this enormous disconnect with reality is a major reason the GOP is tearing itself apart.

"President wasn't impeached over Benghazi?  Clearly the GOP has sold out".

Well Obama does have a "Grand Bargain" with the GOP.

Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

When.

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Of course, the candidates President Clinton or President Sanders will put forth if they wait will be 100% worse to their cause.

Not unless they get two votes instead of one.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 24, 2016, 04:30:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

When.

Please. That criminal will never win the general election.

She will if half the Republican voters stay home, that's for sure.

Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2016, 03:55:41 AM
Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said during the most recent debate.  The GOP is not going to talk Obama out of nominating someone and should stop pretending to try.

Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2016, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

There are already a couple defections.

Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2016, 09:32:49 AM

Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2016, 03:55:41 AM
Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said during the most recent debate.  The GOP is not going to talk Obama out of nominating someone and should stop pretending to try.

Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
Please. That criminal will never win the general election.

Yet that vile murderer of the USFL keeps winning Primaries :weep:

But I think you are right.

Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2016, 08:51:43 AM

Please. That criminal will never win the general election.

You still haven't owned up to the fib you told earlier in this thread, so let's try to keep it at one untruth at a time.

Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2016, 10:11:14 AM
Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

Quote from: Jacob on February 24, 2016, 01:41:29 PM
Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

To add, his supporters (and their reasons for supporting him) are more unsettling than the man himself.

Sandoval is young, if he gets confirmed He'll be judge for a good 25 years.

Quote from: Jacob on February 24, 2016, 01:41:29 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2016, 10:11:14 AM
Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

It is a sad commentary that openly stated unabashed opportunism looks like refreshing honesty these days.  :lol:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2016, 03:55:41 AM
Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

If the Republicans just said that, I would have a hell of a lot more respect for them.

It isn't about some general rule, it is about the current political make up of the system.

There is no rule that says that Obama cannot nominate in the last year, and there is no rule that says they must confirm.

Paul Ryan essentially said that in his press conference today, they asked him about the SCOTUS nomination. He prefaced it by saying that as House members they have no real part in the process, but that he viewed the President's appointment power and the Senate's confirmation power as equivalent, that they are two equal branches of government and the Senate has the constitutional authority to decide on what they will hear and what they will discuss.

The game the Republicans are playing is not with the President, but with their own constituents.  They must appear to be opposing the President at all times.  They painted themselves into this corner.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

Tactical genius

Shrug, seems like a good move, but it gives the Republicans an easy out.

"Obama caved to our pressure and nominated a Republican! Hah!"

The combination of Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford v. Washington and withering dissent just seven years later in Michigan v. Bryant alone would warrant my earnest "R.I.P."  But more broadly, I remember and respect his steadfast (if not total) defense of the protections that the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment extend to everyone present in the U.S. 

The courts test, define, narrow, and expand these protections in their decisions.  It's an odd part of the system, though, that essentially the only parties who can bring a suit on the scope of these Amendments are convicted criminals -- often even ones who unquestionably did a bad deed.  A lot of people, understandably, hate to see criminals "getting off on a technicality" and instinctively disagree with the decisions that let them off "scot-free."

But there's a cliche dear to many public defenders' hearts: "The Bill of Rights is not a technicality."  Over his 30 years on the S. Ct. bench, I'd say Scalia guarded the 4th/5th/6th Amendments a good deal more carefully than most of his colleagues; wasn't afraid to be the only "conservative" justice to cross over on these cases; and tended to be less swayed by arguments that constitutional rights should give sway to the practical difficulty/danger of policework (unlike Breyer, a supposed "liberal" justice, who has often been very receptive to those arguments). 

At the same time, it's clear that Scalia had very little sympathy for these litigants on a personal level.  He expressed as much in oral argument at times -- one that I remember is him openly stating that rehabilitation is no longer a goal for imprisonment at all -- and I think it runs through his opinions.  He and Thomas were about as unsympathetic as you could be towards 8th Amendment and s.1983 claims by prisoners (most famously regarding the death penalty [even more famously as applied to the mentally retarded], but also on gross disproportionately in prison sentences, LWOP for juveniles, prison medical negligence, guard brutality, etc.)  Scalia's language in describing the inmates in his Brown v. Plata dissent (re Calif. prison overcrowding) makes his attitude pretty clear.  So Scalia's criminal-related jurisprudence an interesting juxtaposition for someone, lawyer or not, who is concerned with criminal justice.

Regarding his death, I think it's clear that Antonin (a great first name, IMO) enjoyed the good things in life.  It's well-known that he was a serious smoker right up to his death (although I didn't know that he enjoyed a pipe on top of all the cigarettes).  And it's clear he did his share of banqueting: one imagines him bringing his opera guests (why not Ruth B. and Martin D.?) to a typical post-performance repast, serving them with succulent Texan quail and pheasant from an ample platter, and filling their glasses with generous quantities of the finest Italian wines. 

The reigning health ideology would demand that we be aghast at how he treated his body, and even I admit it was perhaps a bit de trop, especially as he aged. (Though he came nowhere close to Thurgood Marshall's excessive indulgence during his protracted, bitter withdrawal from Court activity during his later years on the bench.)  On the other hand, I don't doubt that Scalia enjoyed himself plenty with life's gustatory and fumatory pleasures, yet still died in his sleep, with his his mental faculties seemingly intact, just shy of 80 -- a pretty happy outcome for anybody's life, I'd say.

Couldn't work the "snip" function, so watch 3:05 - 3:56 for some footage of Scalia puffing away on the pipe on the Senate floor during his confirmation hearing in August 1986.  :bowler:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe)

 :D

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 24, 2016, 08:05:27 PM
Couldn't work the "snip" function, so watch 3:05 - 3:56 for some footage of Scalia puffing away on the pipe on the Senate floor during his confirmation hearing in August 1986.  :bowler:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe)

You also get some classic Foghorn Leghorn Howell Heflin around that mark.

Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2016, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

Indeed.  It also:

5. Takes out a GOP governor
6. Takes out possible appealing future national-level GOP politician (Senate at least, maybe POTUS?)

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2016, 11:43:52 PM
5. Takes out a GOP governor

:o  Didn't our president ask for more civility in politics??

Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 07:38:20 AM
Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Sure he could, but why would he?

For the lolz.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2016, 07:45:20 AM

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 07:38:20 AM
Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Sure he could, but why would he?

Indeed, a USSCJ is a better job than being President.  Good pay, job security, high prestige, the ability to affect national policy and far less public scrutiny, such that you can enjoy a good family life.  For a lawyer/politico...unless you ambition is ultimate power, it's the best job there is.

One could argue that the Supreme Court represents the ultimate power on several occasions.

Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2016, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

I don't suppose there's any possibility that Obama thinks he's the best nominee with a chance of getting confirmed?

Quote from: Gups on February 25, 2016, 10:11:14 AM

Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2016, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

I don't suppose there's any possibility that Obama thinks he's the best nominee with a chance of getting confirmed?

Sure. That's part of his plan, that this fellow actually is very well qualified, and if the system worked as it should he'd have every chance of being confirmed. However, it defies reality for Obama not to acknowledge that his opponents have stated, in as many words, that they will not confirm the appointment of anyone he nominates.   

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 07:38:20 AM
Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Apparently he pulled himself out from contention.  :sleep:

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 25, 2016, 01:32:27 PM

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 07:38:20 AM
Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Apparently he pulled himself out from contention.  :sleep:

Probably holding out for more money.

What?  Trump's VP?  :P

I'd be surprised if anyone was willing to be nominated in this climate. I would have picked Sandoval as being most likely to accept nomination, since he has political aspirations he can fall back on - Governor, Senator, maybe future VP/Pres run. For other potential nominees like Sri Srinivasan, why would you let yourself get stonewalled, demonized, and ultimately rejected for partisan reasons?

If When Hillary wins, if the GOP still controls the Senate, I wonder what reason they'll come up with for refusing to hear her nominees? They'll probably point out how the Constitution says "he shall nominate ... judges of the Supreme Court", not "she", ergo Hillary is constitutionally ineligible to appoint Supreme Court justices.

It makes sense to pull himself from the nominating battle if he didn't think he would be confirmed.

He would probably be destroyed as a republican in the fight and wouldn't be able to win a republican primary again.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 25, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
I'd be surprised if anyone was willing to be nominated in this climate. I would have picked Sandoval as being most likely to accept nomination, since he has political aspirations he can fall back on - Governor, Senator, maybe future VP/Pres run. For other potential nominees like Sri Srinivasan, why would you let yourself get stonewalled, demonized, and ultimately rejected for partisan reasons?

If When Hillary wins, if the GOP still controls the Senate, I wonder what reason they'll come up with for refusing to hear her nominees? They'll probably point out how the Constitution says "he shall nominate ... judges of the Supreme Court", not "she", ergo Hillary is constitutionally ineligible to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Does the US Constitution actually contemplate a female president? The originalist crowd could run with that.  :hmm:

I would think that being nominated and stalled in this adminstration would tend to put you on the short list for Hillary's.

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 02:42:33 PM
Does the US Constitution actually contemplate a female president? The originalist crowd could run with that.  :hmm:

I think they would recognize that the proper pronoun in the English language for a person of unknown gender is "he".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2016, 03:07:05 PM
I would think that being nominated and stalled in this adminstration would tend to put you on the short list for Hillary's.

Probably not if he picked a compromise candidate though.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2016, 03:10:08 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2016, 03:07:05 PM
I would think that being nominated and stalled in this adminstration would tend to put you on the short list for Hillary's.

Probably not if he picked a compromise candidate though.

I think that Hillary would be likely to pick a compromise candidate in any case.  She has always struck me as being more interested in governing than grandstanding.

I don't think there is really any chance that Hillary would pick a candidate already picked by Obama. She would almost certainly want *her* candidate.

Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2016, 09:01:29 PM
I don't think there is really any chance that Hillary would pick a candidate already picked by Obama. She would almost certainly want *her* candidate.

The list of people suitable isn't infinite.  I could see her nominating the same candidate, for the same reasons, as Obama.  They are not that far apart politically.  There differences are mostly personal:  he's more charismatic, and she's more decisive.

Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2016, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2016, 09:01:29 PM
I don't think there is really any chance that Hillary would pick a candidate already picked by Obama. She would almost certainly want *her* candidate.

The list of people suitable isn't infinite.  I could see her nominating the same candidate, for the same reasons, as Obama.  They are not that far apart politically.  There differences are mostly personal:  he's more charismatic, and she's more decisive.

I don't think it unlikely from the standpoint of ideology, just that New President Clinton would not want to be seen as just rubber-stamping "Obama's" candidate, rather than making that decision herself.

Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2016, 05:12:17 PM
I think that Hillary would be likely to pick a compromise candidate in any case.  She has always struck me as being more interested in governing than grandstanding.

Until you piss her off and her emotions take over.

Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2016, 12:39:32 AM

Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2016, 05:12:17 PM
I think that Hillary would be likely to pick a compromise candidate in any case.  She has always struck me as being more interested in governing than grandstanding.

Until you piss her off and her emotions take over.

There's a lot of LBJ in her.

Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2016, 12:39:32 AM

Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2016, 05:12:17 PM
I think that Hillary would be likely to pick a compromise candidate in any case.  She has always struck me as being more interested in governing than grandstanding.

Until you piss her off and her emotions take over.

I'd goof on your usual castration complex-fueled misogyny, but she's got bigger stones than you anyway.

Reallly is a shame how your mother made you pee sitting down, though.  That had to make the locker room very difficult.

What if you you are just lazy and looking for a break to play solitaire on your phone? Is sitting down to pee OK? :unsure: Asking for a friend.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2016, 06:41:00 AM
I'd goof on your usual castration complex-fueled misogyny, but she's got bigger stones than you anyway.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.  Are you just projecting?

QuoteReallly is a shame how your mother made you pee sitting down, though.  That had to make the locker room very difficult.

Nah, the stalls had doors.  As far as anyone knew I was dropping a deuce.

Quote from: celedhring on February 25, 2016, 07:38:20 AM
Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Yes, nominees can and have withdrawn themselves- most recent I can find is Dedo Adegbile, who withdrew under the likely threat that the Senate wouldn't confirm him.

Sandoval's already done so, saying he wouldn't accept the nomination: http://blackchristiannews.com/2016/02/republican-nevada-governor-sandoval-withdraws-name-from-white-house-supreme-court-consideration/ (http://blackchristiannews.com/2016/02/republican-nevada-governor-sandoval-withdraws-name-from-white-house-supreme-court-consideration/)

I'd personally love to see this go to court, as the Republicans have explicitly made this not about the qualifications of an individual nominee, but (again, explicitly) to deprive Obama of his nomination privileges under the Constitution.  It's certainly in bad faith, and for a bunch of people who love to preach about their love of the "spirit of the Constitution," this is a textbook example of "letter of the law, not spirit of the law."

What they'll say to the press and what they'll say to the court are different matters. Unless you want the court to rule on a bunch of hearsay...

I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.  I think that whether Senators can get away with being partisan hacks is always going to be left to the voters.

I just think it is funny that, for Republicans, Joe Biden (of all people!) has replaced Ronald Reagan as their patron saint and model.  That alone makes all of this worthwhile.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.  I think that whether Senators can get away with being partisan hacks is always going to be left to the voters.

I just think it is funny that, for Republicans, Joe Biden (of all people!) has replaced Ronald Reagan as their patron saint and model.  That alone makes all of this worthwhile.

I'm not so sure, since the Senate is so heavily intertwined with all procedural aspects of the country's operation.  Their budget squabbles in particular have had noticeable, dramatic effects on the day-to-day of the country.

In theory, the three branches of government are approximately equal in power, but in practice, the legislature is the only arm that has mechanisms to overrule both other branches of government (pushing for new amendments to the Constitution in the case of unfavorable results in the judicial branch, veto override in the case of unfavorable results at the executive branch).

Not only does it seem to me that they're too integral to not recognize an affirmative duty to govern, with the increasing party-driven gridlock and increasingly frustrated politicians we're seeing lately, I think it's also getting more likely that we're going to see this taken to court (by either a senator or president whose business is being blocked as a matter of procedure) sooner rather than later.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.

There isn't an obligation to fulfill the duties of their office?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2016, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.

There isn't an obligation to fulfill the duties of their office?

Its the sort of thing that ought to be subject of one of the old prerogative writs, like Mandamus. Similar things have been tried at the state level in the US.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/182259-session-is-over-supreme-court-rules-against-senate-ds

No clue if this would work against the US Senate.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2016, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.

There isn't an obligation to fulfill the duties of their office?

They take an oath to that effect, but they get to decide what the duties of their office are.

Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2016, 10:48:50 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2016, 06:41:00 AM
I'd goof on your usual castration complex-fueled misogyny, but she's got bigger stones than you anyway.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.  Are you just projecting?

Quote

The fact that you'd make a sexist crack about her "emotions taking over" when she's arguably been the only candidate this entire election campaign that hasn't had a meltdown, tantrum or any thing remotely related to an emotional outburst is just par for the course of your usual emasculation anxiety, which you insist on exhibiting at every turn. 

Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2016, 04:22:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2016, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think that any court would find that the Senate has a positive duty to participate in governing the country.

There isn't an obligation to fulfill the duties of their office?

Its the sort of thing that ought to be subject of one of the old prerogative writs, like Mandamus. Similar things have been tried at the state level in the US.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/182259-session-is-over-supreme-court-rules-against-senate-ds

No clue if this would work against the US Senate.

Well, I suppose the first thing we should note about that case is that the court ruled unanimously against granting the writ, even though 5 of the justices agree that the Florida House violated the Florida constitution in the way in which they ended the session.  And even if the writ had been granted, it would have only compelled the House to remain in session--it wouldn't have compelled them to act on any particular business,  they could have just sat on their hands until May 1st.

Beyond that, in the extremely unlikely case that the Federal courts would actually compel the Senate to act on a nominee put forward by the President, the Senate would simply reject the nomination;  the courts certainly wouldn't have any authority to direct the Senate to vote in a certain way.  To do so would, in effect, transfer the Senate's power to confirm or reject Presidential appointments to the courts.

I have to agree with dps. No matter how you slice it, ultimately the Senate has a power to achieve the same results through constitutional means so how exactly they do it does not really matter. ultimately they bear political responsibility, not judicial one.

Well yeah you expect the Senate to reject or not act on whatever it wants to. It is accountable to its voters if it does.

I just reject the notion there is a Constitutional or Rules requirement for the President to not nominate a new USSC judge.

I would dispute the constitution lays out three equal branches of government. It lays out three separate branches of government, and specifies checks and balances between them. However I think on paper the legislative is vastly more powerful than the other two. The big limitation on the legislature it is made up of diffuse membership, which prevents it from easily summoning forth the might of its power. But I would note even in the era of the Imperial Presidency (so arguably post-Franklin Roosevelt) when the legislature was united in action, the President left office.

The legislature has the power to, by statute, define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and most of the materially important cases the Supreme Court hears are in its appellate jurisdiction), it could probably by statute define term limits for Supreme Court justices, it can certainly modify the size of the Supreme Court at whim, it by statute has created all courts in the United States. In theory if the legislature had never passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 we wouldn't even have Federal courts, so in many ways the judicial branch is the weakest. The vast amount of power the Supreme Court has largely developed out of thin air and exists only because there is broad public agreement it's a good thing, but there are genuine doubts about how the Supreme Court could force the hand of the legislature to do something. The legislature normally isn't in a position to ignore Supreme Court rulings because most of its rulings that strike at legislation declare a law unconstitutional and then the executive branch obviously wouldn't execute or recognize that law any longer. But if the legislature was hit with a writ of mandamus to vote on Obama's nominees, I speculate it could simply ignore it. What recourse would the court have? The recourse for a President ignoring a Supreme Court order is political--if it pisses people off enough he could end up impeached, by the legislature. But what "consequence" could the court bring to bear on the legislature? Very little, I suspect. And even the President is immune from consequence when his ignoring the judiciary is politically accepted (as happened a few times in the 19th century, notably during the administrations of Lincoln and Jackson.)

Also the legislature aside from holding impeachment power over both the judiciary and the executive, could in theory reduce the President to little more than a figurehead through onerous legislation, creation of independent executive bodies, starving the executive of funding if it got out of line, and impeaching Presidents who tried to reassert power. That's highly theoretical though, the practical reality today is I believe the executive is the most powerful of the three branches. The large body of bureaucracy, the complexity of laws requiring a lot of interpretation by bureaucrats, the degree to which Congress has been weak and divided for several generations now means that the executive (at large, and the President himself) have taken on a lot of powers probably outside the original intent of the constitution and outside strictly the laws Congress has passed.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2016, 09:31:23 AM
The fact that you'd make a sexist crack about her "emotions taking over" when she's arguably been the only candidate this entire election campaign that hasn't had a meltdown, tantrum or any thing remotely related to an emotional outburst is just par for the course of your usual emasculation anxiety, which you insist on exhibiting at every turn. 

What drove my remark was not some kind of imaginary "castration complex" but rather a desire to get a reaction out of you.  Anywho, I would agree that she's been fairly sedate in this primary-- practically robotic.  To go with that, her attempts at humor have been painfully lame.  Will be interesting to see how she reacts once Trump starts going after her.

Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2016, 02:05:20 PM
Anywho, I would agree that she's been fairly sedate in this primary-- practically robotic.  To go with that, her attempts at humor have been painfully lame.

She is not a politician in the campaigning stump-speech energize-the-crowd definition, and she would be the first to say that.  She has all the podium appeal of a chartered accountant at a compliance testimony.  She is a policy wonk, not a gladhander.

Unfortunately, she simply can't dodge being a woman, and some elements of the double standard is always going to exist:  whereas a man can get some bass in his voice when it comes to speaking to a crowd, she just sounds like she's yelling at you about folding your bathroom towels the right way.  It just makes you wince.  Even I can't stand listening to her rally coverage.  Now, debates and interviews, that's different.

QuoteWill be interesting to see how she reacts once Trump starts going after her.

The same way she has reacted to everything else he has said about her, and the same way she's dealt with people going after her over the last 30 years: like a lawyer.

re: why the republicans chose this particular strategy rather than simply reject nominees after they've been vetted, etc.

I'm under the impression that politicians with law degrees have more respect toward the judiciary. by refusing to review any nominee, republicans are allowed their politics while maintaining that respect for the judiciary. they're not personally rejecting a well-qualified candidate -- they're refusing to review any candidate.

Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2016, 02:05:20 PM
Will be interesting to see how she reacts once Trump starts going after her.

I think that there is where Trump is going to immolate himself.  She only has to not crack and he'll drive off everyone but the zealots.  Trumps strategy works in the primaries, but once he has to face an audience not made up of true believers, his facade will wear thin.  The only way Trump wins is if Clinton self-destructs before he can finish demolishing himself.

President will be naming a nominee at 11. I hope he picks Trump's sister for maximum troll factor.

Merrick Garland

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2016, 08:24:29 AM
President will be naming a nominee at 11. I hope he picks Trump's sister for maximum troll factor.

She's 78.

While I wouldn't put it past Trump to nominate her (is there anything I wouldn't put past Trump? :hmm:), no way Obama does.

He either nominates a moderate with some ties to the GOP (Srinavasan is the name that keeps coming up), or he nominates a strong liberal thinking " what the hell, the GOP will never nominate this person anyways".

I had a really odd preturnatural thought that this thread update was going to be that the coroner's inquest found homicide as the cause of death.

Nomination of a S.Ct. Justice might deserve its own thread...