Supreme court justice Scalia dead!

vetinari · 13-02-2016 11:59PM #1

RIP to the man.
Didn't agree with his views in general.

Will be interesting to see what happens with Obama nominates a replacement.
Republicans won't want to confirm a nomination but could be harmful in an election year to spend the year blocking a nomination.

KingBrian2 · 14-02-2016 12:03AM

Expect a lot of bias.

Manach · 14-02-2016 12:04AM

A decent and honourable man who had contributed much to legal jurisprudence in his various books/cases. May he RIP.

bnt · 14-02-2016 09:11AM

The makeup of the SC is a huge political football: Scalia was appointed by Reagan, who got 4 of his appointees on, and every president since him, including Obama to date, has got 2 appointees on the SC. It will be interesting to see if he can find someone suitable who can get past a fairly hostile Senate. I'm thinking of someone like his last appointment, Elena Kagan, who's very much a moderate "consensus builder".

oscarBravo · 14-02-2016 02:18PM

I agreed with very little he said, but he was always entertaining.

The reflexive responses from the GOP candidates are already looking predictably petty and self-serving.

AbusesToilets · 14-02-2016 04:45PM

It would be very difficult for the GOP to filibuster an appointment for a year to the SC.

Overheal · 14-02-2016 04:49PM

The president can also appoint someone during recess.

Skylinehead · 14-02-2016 04:59PM

Overheal wrote: »

The president can also appoint someone during recess.

How does that work, does the nominee not need to be approved?

Longest time between SC appointments seems to be 3 months, they'd do well to block it for 11.

oscarBravo · 14-02-2016 06:03PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

How does that work, does the nominee not need to be approved?

A recess appointment doesn't need Senate confirmation, but only serves until the end of the following Senate term. It's possible that a recess appointment could be made permanent if nominated and confirmed through the normal process.

InTheTrees · 14-02-2016 06:16PM

The Supreme Court starts its term in October and hears cases until early spring when they start handing down decisions.

It used to be a 5 to 4 conservative majority, but now a lot of decisions are going to be tied, in which case they are passed back to the previous court.

There's some important Union related decisions, abortion access and voters rights issues that will now saved from conservative interference(!).

Overheal · 15-02-2016 12:24AM

Either way the internet is falling over itself at the situation. Some people think no one should be appointed for no reason other than they don't like Obama and worry about a non-GOP appointee. Others are delighted that the GOP can continue its brand of obstructionism until after the elections.

Perhaps the 2 most controversial decisions he was a part of deciding were rulings on Voter ID laws, and Citizens United, which essentially equates money with free speech, ensuring that dollars matter almost more than votes.

http://www.ibtimes.com/antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-justices-five-most-controversial-opinions-2306576

His dissenting opinions on Obamacare and Gay marriage would not have swayed either decision as far as I read.

Overheal · 15-02-2016 04:40PM

February 1998, Kennedy and the GOP confirm Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court at this same time in Reagan's last term, as Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285

McConnel 2005: "The president, and the president alone, should nominated judges"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

McConnel 2008

McConnel 2012 invokes so-called Thurmond Rule: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_151/GOP-Begins-Judge-Blockade-215369-1.html?pos=hln

McConnel 2016: “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."

John Oliver wrote:

Yes, it seems the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a bit like God: when things are going your way, you don’t bring it up a lot, but as soon as you’re in trouble it is all that you talk about,” quipped Oliver.

Of course, since the Thurmond Rule applies to the last six months of a president’s term, it wouldn’t even come into effect until July 20. Either way, to outright deny President Obama’s choice to a fair nomination process would likely go against the wishes of the late Antonin Scalia, who, as Sen. Marco Rubio stated in the recent South Carolina debate, understood that the Constitution was not a “living and breathing” document and was meant to be interpreted by its “original meaning.”

“He’s right,” said Oliver. “Scalia loved the letter of the law—so let’s look at the letter as it applies here, shall we? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, ‘[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court. That’s the president. This president. There is nothing in the Constitution about you getting to delay him for a year because of some bull**** tradition.”

He continued, “So to Senate Republicans, I say this: If you really loved Antonin Scalia, you wouldn’t honor his memory by desecrating the thing he loved the most. Think of Scalia like a Britta filter or a child’s hamster: Why don’t you honor his entire reason for being by swiftly and efficiently replacing him.”

It seems as though the GOP's kneejerk reactions to Scalia's passing will end up betraying them. Obama hasn't even announced an appointee and already the partisans are flying out of the walls to shut it down.

InTheTrees · 15-02-2016 11:53PM

Overheal wrote: »

It seems as though the GOP's kneejerk reactions to Scalia's passing will end up betraying them. Obama hasn't even announced an appointee and already the partisans are flying out of the walls to shut it down.

There are enough republican senate seats who's current majorities are dependent on moderate republicans that its possible that a prolonged battled to stop Obama's nominee could swing the Senate back to Democratic party control.

endacl · 15-02-2016 11:56PM

Not nice to speak ill of the dead. So, with that in mind, I offer this full stop.

Manach · 16-02-2016 12:02AM

This seems to be a good neutral blog on the nomination process:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/#more-238336

Overheal · 16-02-2016 12:58AM

Oh dear f*cking Cthulhu.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/he-would-not-could-not-ted-cruz-will-filibuster-any-obaminee-for-scotus/

STEPHANOPOULOS: But does…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: — does that mean — does that mean that you’re going to filibuster anyone — anyone that President Obama nominates?

CRUZ: Absolutely. This should be a decision for the people, George. We’ve got an election. And, you know, Democrats — I cannot wait to stand on that stage with Hillary Clinton or with Bernie Sanders and take the case to the people, what vision of the Supreme Court do you want?

Let the election decide it. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.

But you know what, I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortion on demand, partial birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification. And I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of “The Constitution.”

All of those are 5-4 issues that are hanging in the balance.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But — but the people elected…

CRUZ: And I’ll tell you, you know, the consequence of…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — President Obama, didn’t they?

CRUZ: They did, but — but that — that was three years ago and elections have consequences. The people also gave us a Republican Senate this last election because they were fed up with Barack Obama’s lawlessness.

Invoking some fearmongering, Ted Cruz says he will help filibuster any candidate the President should try to appoint, because he was elected 3 years ago, everyone knows presidents only serve 3 years per term and do nothing for the rest.

Manic Moran · 16-02-2016 06:49AM

GOP idiots. There was one rational response to the issue in the most recent debate, I can't remember who it was, but he was saying "Obama should nominate a more centrist sort of judge to get it past our controlled senate"

The whole "We should wait for the next president" thing makes a mockery of any intelligent person. As if they wouldn't hesitate to nominate their own person if they were President right now.

Manach · 16-02-2016 08:03AM

I would say there is a measure of brinkmanship that the GOP are playing to check that Obama's pick will at least lack some of the Yes-person rabid liberal law-making potential that some of the Prog's more volatile members wish to put forward.

Akrasia · 16-02-2016 09:42AM

Manach wrote: »

I would say there is a measure of brinkmanship that the GOP are playing to check that Obama's pick will at least lack some of the Yes-person rabid liberal law-making potential that some of the Prog's more volatile members wish to put forward.

That's what they might be doing if they were a mature political movement, but they're 3 year old, so Cruz genuinely means that he will filibuster any obama nomination,

By filibuster, this means literally standing in the house of congress and giving a speech that involves reading names from the telephone book for hours on end, pissing into a jar and singing 'i know a song that gets on everybody's nerves' until everyone else goes home and it's too late to call a vote

Children, babies, who are looking to get the codes for the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Akrasia · 16-02-2016 09:44AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

GOP idiots. There was one rational response to the issue in the most recent debate, I can't remember who it was, but he was saying "Obama should nominate a more centrist sort of judge to get it past our controlled senate"

The whole "We should wait for the next president" thing makes a mockery of any intelligent person. As if they wouldn't hesitate to nominate their own person if they were President right now.

And if they controlled the house and the senate, they would nominate the most crack pot 'god, guns and apple pie' 18 year old they can find to ensure that they'll be able to block progressive politics for decades to come.

Shurimgreat · 16-02-2016 12:29PM

Not a hope in hell of any recommendation by Obama getting past the Senate or not without an almighty fight.

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president. Obama is desperate for a legacy but this is not the way to go about it.

oscarBravo · 16-02-2016 12:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president.

He shouldn't do his job because of political opposition? What a strange idea.

InTheTrees · 16-02-2016 12:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Obama should leave the appointment until the next president. Obama is desperate for a legacy but this is not the way to go about it.

He still has a quarter of his second term to go. I think Obama needs to take care of the duties of the presidency which is to nominate a new judge.

If republicans think its a good strategy to block the nomination right through the election campaign I think they'll be surprised.

Permabear · 16-02-2016 02:07PM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 16-02-2016 03:29PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not "exactly" the same thing. Schumer was pointing out that Bush had stacked the court with ultra-conservatives, and was making the argument that any more Bush appointees were likely to be equally conservative.

I disagree with his argument that they shouldn't confirm any further nominees, but at least he wasn't arguing that it would be undemocratic for a President with a quarter of his current term left to make a nomination at all.

Permabear · 16-02-2016 03:42PM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 16-02-2016 03:49PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...by conservatives

...and has sided with liberals on notable issues like health care reform (see the New York Times "The Roberts Court's Surprising Move Leftward").

The ACA is one of very few examples of him not siding with the conservative wing of the court.

A recent study in The Journal of Legal Studies and related data presented an even more nuanced picture. It ranked the justices in ideological order and was prepared by Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis; William M. Landes, a law professor and economist at the University of Chicago; and Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

They found that Chief Justice Roberts voted in a conservative direction 58 percent of the time over the last decade, while Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ranged from 61 to 65 percent.

But the chief justice leaned right when it mattered most. “He is a reliable conservative in the most closely contested cases but moderate when his vote cannot change the outcome,” the study said.

In 5-to-4 cases, the study found, Chief Justice Roberts voted in a conservative direction 85 percent of the time, a higher rate than that of any other member of the court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-amasses-conservative-record-and-the-rights-ire.html

Permabear · 16-02-2016 04:40PM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 16-02-2016 05:18PM

Fair enough. I'll dial back my "ultra-conservative" to "conservative". I'll still maintain that Schumer's message of "we should block any more conservative appointments to the SC" is different from the current GOP's message of "the current President has no right to nominate anyone to the SC".

Amerika · 16-02-2016 05:19PM

I support the GOP blocking any nominee of Obama’s that moves the court left. It’s not like the republicans started this. Actions SHOULD have consequences. Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork. Keep repeating that all those who think what the GOP is doing is so terrible. The US Constitution states the President makes the nomination... It doesn't state the Senate must confirm the nomination.

oscarBravo · 16-02-2016 05:35PM

Amerika wrote: »

I support the GOP blocking any nominee of Obama’s that moves the court left. It’s not like the republicans started this. Actions SHOULD have consequences. Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork, Robert Bork. Keep repeating that all those who think what the GOP is doing is so terrible. The US Constitution states the President makes the nomination... It doesn't state the Senate must confirm the nomination.

If the Senate doesn't approve of a nomination, it has the right to reject that nomination.

The idea that a GOP-controlled Senate should reject a nomination in retaliation for another rejection thirty years ago - when there have been nine other nominations accepted since, across the political divide - is childish beyond belief.

Supreme court justice Scalia dead!

Comments