If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Its going to get messy in Congress. The slot should however be filled before November.
It does beg the question if this will cause the GOP primary voters to take a look at whom is most electable versus who resonates with them most viscerally. This is the first of two probable appointments in the next 6 years and suddenly putting a splinter faction outsider on the ballot becomes a real risk. Are those primary voters willing to gamble on a niche candidate and see if he can win over the moderates and independents needed to win the WH.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
Would it surprise anyone if he made a recess appointment, himself.
The Senate will block that the same way they have recently, by formally holding short sessions during recess but not deciding anything, thereby making sure the actual recess is too short for a recess appointment.
The early favorite appears to be Sri Srinivasan, a federal appeals court judge who was confirmed 97-0 as late as 2013. He is apparently a centrist, as these things go (haven't researched the guy myself). This will present the GOP with a couple of bad choices: Either they
a) refuse him, get questions about why they voted for the guy last time and risk a more liberal candidate after the election if the Dems pick up the Senate
b) stall, leave the question open throughout the election year, and run the same questions and risks
c) confirm and get flak from their own right wing about that
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I'm with the idea Obama will toss some sacrificial meat at the Republicans for the first round, burn 100 days with it, and then put up an appointment they can't refuse (like Sri).
From Elizabeth Warren, who I think gets it right here:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Do Republicans actually love the constitution, or just parts of it?
Is there really such a thing as an appointment they can't refuse though? I get the impression they don't think so these days.
Normally I'd say they could get away with it, but the Democrats have the advantage.
The Republicans need moderates, independents and a low voter turnout. They block this for a year, they lose all three.
Right now, the offer is a middle-of-the-road candidate. They pass it up, in 2017 they face a serious risk of a lefty appointment with a frigging mandate behind it.
The Democrats are masters at it. Where do you think the term "getting Borked" came from? The Democrats blocked many of W's judicial nominees, most infamously Miguel Estrada. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geor..._controversies
The Democrats are masters at it. Where do you think the term "getting Borked" came from? The Democrats blocked many of W's judicial nominees, most infamously Miguel Estrada. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geor..._controversies
These are two separate things.
The senate is supposed to block a nominee they don't like.
This is different from blocking a nominee with the intention of running out the clock.
No, but many on the right are discouraging Obama from even nominating a justice, saying that we should just sit tight and wait for the next president to start this process.
Of course, if Hilary and Bernie Sanders are elected I'm sure they'll do everything they can to block the appointee anyway.
No, but many on the right are discouraging Obama from even nominating a justice, saying that we should just sit tight and wait for the next president to start this process.
I don't think that argument is inherently disrespectful to the constitution. If Scalia had lived until October, it would be a legit position.
Claiming it this far out is bullshit, I'm not questioning that, but counter-constitution?
Maybe a little if you get really stretchy about it.
I don't think that argument is inherently disrespectful to the constitution. If Scalia had lived until October, it would be a legit position.
Claiming it this far out is bullshit, I'm not questioning that, but counter-constitution?
Maybe a little if you get really stretchy about it.
What is counter-constitution is questioning the legitimacy of Obama nominating somebody while he is president. Maybe counter-constitution is not the best term, but there is certainly no constitutional basis for a claim that this should wait until the next presidency as several of the candidates are suggesting should happen.
I hope Americans see how big of a mess the Republican party is right now and let it implode rather than giving it the keys to the bus. I don't think voting any particular president is going to change things substantially, but giving the Republican party as a whole more power would be a definite setback.
Back when Obama got elected, there were lots of references to how the world imitated art in The West Wing. This episode strikes me as another occasion of that - specifically, S05E17, if anyone remembers.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
The Senate will block that the same way they have recently, by formally holding short sessions during recess but not deciding anything, thereby making sure the actual recess is too short for a recess appointment.
The early favorite appears to be Sri Srinivasan, a federal appeals court judge who was confirmed 97-0 as late as 2013. He is apparently a centrist, as these things go (haven't researched the guy myself). This will present the GOP with a couple of bad choices: Either they
a) refuse him, get questions about why they voted for the guy last time and risk a more liberal candidate after the election if the Dems pick up the Senate
b) stall, leave the question open throughout the election year, and run the same questions and risks
c) confirm and get flak from their own right wing about that
"Centrist"? Only if you consider Breyer a Centrist, they share the same philosophies. Being anti-2A, I strongly doubt the senate will confirm him.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yeah, I don't get it. Presidential nominees for the USSC are just that, nominees. It's the senate's job to elect someone, not just rubber stamp a submission.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Obama had an interest too. It's not going to happen so long as a large faction of the Republican party decides they won't cooperate no matter what.
With Bernie, I'm talking about a coalition amongst Democrats.
I don't think Obama really wanted a coalition with Reupblicans. He certainly didn't behave like it. OTOH, Bernie is far to radical to form a coalition with Republicans.
As late as Sunday afternoon, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy would be performed, though officials later said Scalia’s body was being embalmed and there would be no autopsy. One report, by WFAA-TV in Dallas, said the death certificate would show the cause of the death was a heart attack.
"Centrist"? Only if you consider Breyer a Centrist, they share the same philosophies. Being anti-2A, I strongly doubt the senate will confirm him.
As I said, don't know the guy, only quoting what I picked up in about five minutes, but isn't Breyer pretty much in the center of the court politically? The other three Justices nominated by Democrats strike me as being to the left of him.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him. "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Feb 15, 2016 at 09:15 AM.
)
As I said, don't know the guy, only quoting what I picked up in about five minutes, but isn't Breyer pretty much in the center of the court politically? The other three Justices nominated by Democrats strike me as being to the left of him.
He's to the Left of Sotomayor and slightly to the Right of Ginsburg, IOW squarely in the middle of the Left side of the court.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
My first though upon hearing the news was that Scalia must be pissed.
My second thought was that RBG must be so sad.
Remember when we were talking about the nastiness from the Left in the other thread? Well, this has brought out the worst of it. Finally it reached a point where Twitter started suspending the accounts of Regressives who were attacking and threatening anyone who sent condolences to Scalia's family and friends. It's unlike anything I've ever seen before.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Remember when we were talking about the nastiness from the Left in the other thread? Well, this has brought out the worst of it. Finally it reached a point where Twitter started suspending the accounts of Regressives who were attacking and threatening anyone who sent condolences to Scalia's family and friends. It's unlike anything I've ever seen before.
Trashing Scalia now makes for a great political identifier.
"How much do you support the cause? Enough to do a grave dance?"
Thanks to a Volokh Conspiracy commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.
UPDATE: Updated with a link to the final vote on the resolution, 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” Also, note that President Eisenhower had recess-appointed William Brennan to the Supreme Court in October 1956, just before the presidential election. With a winnable election coming up, Democrats obviously didn’t want a replay.
Chongo: don't your arguments seem the least bit childish to you? Pretty much "well they did it, so therefore it is okay for us to do it too"?
This partisan politics machine is intractable, it is time to dismantle it (for all cases).
No, it's the pot calling the kettle. The Democrats have been the masters of obstructing judicial nominees to the court. I get crap whenever I point this out. "You're trying to justify bad behavior by pointing out prior bad behavior". Both parties have always objected to nominees, but the Democrats have been far better at scuttling judicial nominees from making it to the court. Judge Bork is the classic example, he even brought about the term "Borked". The Republicans talked about the "Nuclear Option", it was the Democrats who actually implemented it, albeit it may have been for lower court judges. If the Republicans had, Miguel Estrada would be sitting on the Court of Appeals, along with several other W nominees that were filibustered into withdrawing themselves.
No, it's the pot calling the kettle. The Democrats have been the masters of obstructing judicial nominees to the court. I get hush money whenever I point this out. "You're trying to justify bad behavior by pointing out prior bad behavior". Both parties have always objected to nominees, but the Democrats have been far better at scuttling judicial nominees from making it to the court. Judge Bork is the classic example, he even brought about the term "Borked". The Republicans talked about the "Nuclear Option", it was the Democrats who actually implemented it, albeit it may have been for lower court judges. If the Republicans had, Miguel Estrada would be sitting on the Court of Appeals, along with several other W nominees that were filibustered into withdrawing themselves.
Great, so let's agree to give 100 points to the red team.
One of the more diabolical plans I've heard is Obama finds, say, a lesbian, black woman nominee, sits back, and lets Republicans hammer on her until November.
The blind fury from the left would be like what came out of the Ark at the end of Raiders.
One of the more diabolical plans I've heard is Obama finds, say, a lesbian, black woman nominee, sits back, and lets Republicans hammer on her until November.
The blind fury from the left would be like what came out of the Ark at the end of Raiders.
Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.”
...regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’… Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.
Remember when we were talking about the nastiness from the Left in the other thread? Well, this has brought out the worst of it. Finally it reached a point where Twitter started suspending the accounts of Regressives who were attacking and threatening anyone who sent condolences to Scalia's family and friends. It's unlike anything I've ever seen before.
You're reaching. People shitting on dead controversial people is nothing new, not exclusive to 'regressives.' All that's changed is we have a global platform.
Ha. After shutting down the government did zero damage to them (Over obamacare, no less), I think that's optimistic.
Supposed to? That's an interesting conclusion.
I think they're supposed to vote on the nominee. Even Bork got a vote.
I meant "block" in terms of "vote against".
Everybody knew shutting down the government was circlejerk. The knife fight we're about to get is going to make the shutdown look like it was 6-year-olds pushing each other on the playground.
You're reaching. People shitting on dead controversial people is nothing new, not exclusive to 'regressives.' All that's changed is we have a global platform.
I disagree. I can't recall the Right reacting on this scale to someone's death (not even mass murderers). Maybe Bin Laden, but that was more of a universal "woohoo".
Originally Posted by subego
Trashing Scalia now makes for a great political identifier.
"How much do you support the cause? Enough to do a grave dance?"
More like grave shitting. Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but I have respect for the recently deceased, even those I'm at odds with. One of my oldest enemies died last year and I was gutted, almost as much as if they'd been a good friend.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Chongo: don't your arguments seem the least bit childish to you? Pretty much "well they did it, so therefore it is okay for us to do it too"?
Nope, because it really is "okay for us to do it too". It's called precedence. Now do you understand why people are freaking out over the breadth of Obama's fiat abuse?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Presidential nominees for the USSC are just that, nominees. It's the senate's job to elect someone, not just rubber stamp a submission.
Top