Antonin Scalia dead?

[TakeYouToTasker]

she appears to, that's the important part. she has name recognition attached to TARP (which most forget is a failure) and many other such things people will forget about. name recognition to fiscal issues...that's all she needs.

She's also a Native American woman!

[Marv's Neighbor]

White House has indicated that they will be nominating a replacement, while Repubs want to wait until next president, of course. But the longest Supreme Court confirmation process from nomination to resolution was Judge Brandeis, at 125 days. Obama has 342 days left in office.

There was a 27 month vacancy during John Tyler's administration. I know, that's +150 years ago but.....

[gomper]

I think I just felt the world get lighter

[Azalin]

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone, left or right, would want anyone on the SCOTUS that didn't view the Constitution literally. When you deviate from the actual word and allow for "modern interpretations", you undermine the power of the entire document.

 

RIP Justice Scalia.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Azalin

[B-Man]

The president has the right to nominate. The Senate has the right to consent. There's no appointment until *both* of those happen.

 

 

 

The last time a Justice was nominated + confirmed in election year with Pres. + Sen. of different parties was 1880.

 

 

 

 

Reminder: After Estrada withdrew his nomination that was held up in the Senate for two years

 

Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said the withdrawal was a "a victory for the Constitution.".

 

 

 

Dear progressives: Direct your crocodile tears about the Senate exercising its constitutional authority to reject nominations to Robert Bork

 

[DC Tom]

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone, left or right, would want anyone on the SCOTUS that didn't view the Constitution literally. When you deviate from the actual word and allow for "modern interpretations", you undermine the power of the entire document.

 

RIP Justice Scalia.

 

Because a frighteningly large number of people view the government as the vehicle by which their party beliefs are confirmed and forced on others, and consider the Constitution a hindrance to proper government.

[Rubes]

If you thought this election season was already a circus...

[Bad Things]

Good

[TakeYouToTasker]

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone, left or right, would want anyone on the SCOTUS that didn't view the Constitution literally. When you deviate from the actual word and allow for "modern interpretations", you undermine the power of the entire document.

 

RIP Justice Scalia.

That's largely because there is a large portion of the politically active segment of the population who believe individual outcomes are more important than structure, consistency, and process.

 

For them the Court is essentially a Super-Senate.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

 

Mine too....he kept us relatively sane. Guess that's over now!!

 

Now Obama can one of his followers in there to further his agenda, perfect timing

[Tiberius]

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone, left or right, would want anyone on the SCOTUS that didn't view the Constitution literally. When you deviate from the actual word and allow for "modern interpretations", you undermine the power of the entire document.

 

RIP Justice Scalia.

Probably because many if not most of the issues that come before courts are not addressed literally in a small document like the Constitution. Add to that how much the world has changed since 1790 and you get an increasingly large set of issues that the Founders never could have even of dreamed of. Take corporations for example, they are never mentioned in the constitution but we absolutely have to have laws dealing with them, so it's all open to interpretation there.

The president has the right to nominate. The Senate has the right to consent. There's no appointment until *both* of those happen.

 

Dear progressives: Direct your crocodile tears about the Senate exercising its constitutional authority to reject nominations to Robert Bork

 

Bork? We didn't want a person that had taken part in Nixon's criminal enterprise as a member of the high court of justice

[Tiberius]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/

 

Interesting. Obama might not mind a deadlocked court. Nice read on the situation

 

Oh, and I see late in Reagan's term Kennedy was appointed and approved

[boater]

I'm to the right of center, on the cusp of moderate and conservative.

 

Two liberal friends burned a bridge. They were celebrating Scalia's passing on FB.

 

Without saying anything political, I said I thought it was wrong to celebrate someone's death. They went ape ****.

 

This is one !@#$ed up world.

 

RIP Justice Scalia.

[Rubes]

 

Now Obama can one of his followers in there to further his agenda, perfect timing

 

Wouldn't that be true for any President?

[PromoTheRobot]

 

Wouldn't that be true for any President?

Yes, but Obama!

[26CornerBlitz]

Yes, but Obama!

 

Right. Because constitutional obligations should only be adhered to when it's convenient.

[/dev/null]

Strategically, if I were Obama I would sit on the opening until after the general election.

 

if the republicans win in november, nominate the democratic presidential nominee

if the democrats win in november, nominate the runner up from the democrat primary

 

or just nominate himself

[boyst]

Probably because many if not most of the issues that come before courts are not addressed literally in a small document like the Constitution. Add to that how much the world has changed since 1790 and you get an increasingly large set of issues that the Founders never could have even of dreamed of. Take corporations for example, they are never mentioned in the constitution but we absolutely have to have laws dealing with them, so it's all open to interpretation there.

Bork? We didn't want a person that had taken part in Nixon's criminal enterprise as a member of the high court of justice

why do you even bother?

 

Strategically, if I were Obama I would sit on the opening until after the general election.

 

if the republicans win in november, nominate the democratic presidential nominee

if the democrats win in november, nominate the runner up from the democrat primary

 

or just nominate himself

can you nominate yourself?

[Juror#8]

there is absolutely no political advantage to this course.

 

his best course is to stall this as long as he can to push it to the recess to use that to an advantage.

 

if he can all get this to stall until after the recess, until Fall he has a chance to get himself equal time for a week to the nominees. and we all know obama likes obama.

The political advantage is simply in time. Dems get to suggest that the repubs are holding up a confirmation for an inordinate amount of time simply for the sake of playing politics on the highest court in the land. It stays in the news cycle longer. It becomes a topic during debates. The Dems can message around competent candidate being blocked because the candidate is a ____. The repubs are stuck with "let's wait a year or more so that we can maybe put our own person there." Bad look for repubs. No "win" there for them in that context.

 

It also places Cruz and Rubio in a potential Catch-22.

 

And if the person is a minority, the optics are especially bad for repubs. During an election year, that's a potentially politically damaging proposition.

No. To much of a history on issues current to the Court. This wouldn't work to the left's advantage because it would present a clear issues based opposition.

If he goes this route, given the clear transparency of this type of nomination, he goes Liz Warren.

I can see this happening. My larger point was the senator angle to avoid a contentious nomination battle. And Klobachar is considered in very high regard by her colleagues in the senate. I know this fact personally. Edited February 14, 2016 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

That's largely because there is a large portion of the politically active segment of the population who believe individual outcomes are more important than structure, consistency, and process.

For them the Court is essentially a Super-Senate.

If you don't think that all justices do this to some degree, all of them, than square Scalia's on-the-record agreement with the majority in the Brown v. Board decision with his otherwise very originalist and textual jurisprudence.

 

His failure to illuminate his reasons for agreeing with the majority in Brown, even when pressed, is telling.

 

Scalia was a pragmatist. Just not often at all.

 

I would have loved to know his thoughts on the ""Bolling" decision. I heard him speak at uva a number of years ago but wasn't able to ask the question.