Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:38 pm


jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:43 pm

Anybody taking bets on the confirmation of the replacement being stalled until after the November election? And while I'm making unofficial book, indefinitely after that if a Democrat is elected and the Senate remains Republican?

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:48 pm

Wow, shocking news. He was about the only one who actually upheld the constitution.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:49 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Anybody taking bets on the confirmation of the replacement being stalled until after the November election?
I would say it's extremely unlikely he'll be replaced before the next President takes office.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:06 pm

rwetmore wrote:Wow, shocking news. He was about the only one who actually upheld the constitution.
Utter nonsense. They all uphold the Constitution, meaning that they decide what position fits in with their own politics and then make our flawed and outdated Constitution a procrustean bed to fit their ideas.

The Senate, assuming it remains Republican, could very well wait out the continued earthly existence of Justice Ginsberg so that we would have to get along with a 4-3 Republican majority.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:01 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Anybody taking bets on the confirmation of the replacement being stalled until after the November election? And while I'm making unofficial book, indefinitely after that if a Democrat is elected and the Senate remains Republican?
Well what odds are you offering? Regards, Len :mrgreen:

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:04 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
The Senate, assuming it remains Republican, could very well wait out the continued earthly existence of Justice Ginsberg so that we would have to get along with a 4-3 Republican majority.
Sure go after the opera lovers. Regards, Len [fleeing]

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:09 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Utter nonsense. They all uphold the Constitution, meaning that they decide what position fits in with their own politics and then make our flawed and outdated Constitution a procrustean bed to fit their ideas.
No they don't. At least not Scalia (and Clarence Thomas), and that's what sets them apart.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:20 pm

Battle Begins Over Naming Next Justice
By PETER BAKER
FEB. 13, 2016

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday immediately set off a partisan battle over a vacancy that could reshape the Supreme Court for years to come, as Senate Republicans called on President Obama to let his successor fill the seat. Within hours of Justice Scalia’s death, both sides began laying the groundwork for what could be a titanic confirmation struggle fueled by ideological interest groups. The surprise opening also jolted the presidential campaign and could shift the conversation toward the priorities each candidate would have in making such a selection.

Mr. Obama would be the first president since Reagan to fill three seats on the court. But Senate Republicans made clear they would not make it easy for him, arguing that with just 11 months left in office he should leave the choice to the winner of the November general election. With 54 seats in the Senate, Republicans have the power to block the confirmation of any nomination sent by Mr. Obama if they stick together.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, agreed, citing “the huge divide in the country and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda.”

Though the White House made no formal statement about a replacement, advisers to Mr. Obama made clear privately that he had no intention of leaving the matter to the next president. His Democratic allies made the case that Republicans would be irresponsible to block an appointment. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”

Even without the instant standoff, the opening of a seat on the Supreme Court was sure to roil the presidential campaign. Both sides will use the vacancy to rouse the most fervent members of their political bases by demonstrating the stakes in the election. Republicans will likely talk about the need to stop Mr. Obama from using the court to advance his liberal agenda while Democrats will warn their supporters about the dangers of a Republican president making the selection.

The unexpected timing of the vacancy will force Mr. Obama to make a choice about how far he is willing to go to confront Republicans and inject social issues like abortion into the fall campaign. Will he opt for a relative moderate in hopes of winning over enough Republicans to actually seat a replacement despite Mr. McConnell’s warning? Or will he choose a more liberal candidate at the risk of being blocked on the theory that it might galvanize Democratic voters?

The situation also could prove complicated for Mr. McConnell, who since winning the majority in 2014 has labored to shed the obstructionist label and prove that his caucus can govern responsibly. Approving an Obama nominee could provoke a backlash from conservatives, but a prolonged battle would put Senate Republicans in the middle of a campaign where Mr. McConnell had hoped not to be.

Mr. Obama has already installed two reliable liberals on the high court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and adding another in place of Mr. Scalia’s formidable conservative voice could alter jurisprudence on issues like criminal justice, civil rights and affirmative action. The fate of Mr. Obama’s own programs could be affected, including his liberalization of immigration deportation rules and his environmental crackdown on coal-fired power plants.

With Democrats and independents who caucus with them holding 46 seats in the Senate, Mr. Obama already faces a challenge getting to the simple majority needed to confirm a nominee and would face an even steeper climb to rally the 60 votes needed if Republican opponents mount a filibuster to his choice. Filibusters of Supreme Court nominations are rare, but the Senate blocked the confirmation of Abe Fortas to chief justice in 1968 after such an action. When Democrats were last in the majority and rewrote Senate rules to bar filibusters for lower court judges, they deliberately left it possible to filibuster nominations to the Supreme Court. As a senator, Mr. Obama supported a filibuster against Justice Samuel Alito, who was nonetheless confirmed in 2006.

While seats on the Supreme Court were sometimes left open for extended periods in earlier years of the republic, that has been less true in modern history. According to the Congressional Research Service, the longest the Senate has taken to act on a Supreme Court nomination since 1975 was that of Robert H. Bork, who was rejected 108 days after being selected. But critics of Mr. Obama’s said the timing of the vacancy, coming in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election, should change the calculus. “It has been 80 years since an election-year vacancy has been filled and the politics of the court has changed drastically since those days,” said Shannen W. Coffin, who was counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney.

But Democrats noted that a Democratic Senate confirmed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in February 1988, an election year, although the vacancy had come up the year before. Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said the Supreme Court should “not become a casualty of the politics of destruction, denial and obstruction.”

This was a situation the White House did not expect to face, given decisions by the older justices not to retire last year when a confirmation process would have been less affected by the election. But the White House has a thick file of potential nominees, and allies were urging it on Saturday to move quickly to send a choice to avoid giving Republicans an excuse to delay.

Democrats said plausible candidates could include a series of appellate judges like Merrick B. Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who has been considered by Mr. Obama before. Others mentioned were two other judges in his circuit, Sri Srinivasan and Patricia Millett, and Jacqueline Nguyen of the Ninth Circuit. Some mentioned Kamala Harris, the attorney general of California who is currently running for Senate. On Capitol Hill, some Democrats were promoting Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate who at age 46 would presumably have a long tenure on the court.

No matter whom he picks, Mr. Obama can expect a fight that will help define his legacy — and perhaps help determine who fills one other vacancy that comes up next Jan. 20.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/po ... stice.html
John Francis

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:42 am

Obama says he’ll nominate a replacement for Scalia
By Juliet Eilperin and Paul Kane
February 13 at 10:08 PM

President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”

But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Obama has nominated two justices to the court in the past, and he has expressed the desire for jurists with empathy. He did not discuss his thinking about that on Saturday night. Instead, he used the moment to pay tribute to Scalia, whom he described as an “extraordinary judicial thinker.”

In selecting Supreme Court nominees, Obama has relied heavily on the advice of Vice President Biden, a former Senate Judiciary chairman. Biden has demonstrated again and again a strong working relationship with McConnell, having previously negotiated several tax and budget deals. The court nomination may hinge on Biden’s ability to reach a deal with McConnell again.

But the fate of the nomination would clearly be in Republican hands. While Democrats were able to change the rules in 2013 to make it easier to approve lower court judges with a simple majority, Supreme Court nominations still require 60 votes to advance past an opposition filibuster. To derail or delay the nomination, McConnell could simply not schedule a vote, but even if he allows Senate consideration of the nomination, Democrats do not have the numbers to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Although the Republican-controlled Congress could easily thwart an Obama nominee, such a decision could reverberate across the presidential campaign and into in the November elections, in which several GOP senators face tough, competitive races. The most immediate outcome of the Scalia vacancy is that it offers Obama the chance to draw sharper battle lines with Republicans during an increasingly acrimonious presidential election.

The administration now faces a chaotic political and legal environment in which the president must prepare for a bitter confirmation fight or embrace the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court divided evenly between liberals and conservatives.

Scalia’s death also throws into doubt the outcome of some of the most controversial issues facing the nation in cases before the court this term: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation. A deadlocked court could leave appellate decisions in place without setting a precedent. That would please the administration on a case involving union membership, for instance, but would keep Obama’s executive action on deportation from being implemented.

White House officials would not comment Saturday evening on their deliberations about a potential nominee, but the administration has an extensive list of possible candidates to choose from, including some who would change the face of the court by virtue of their race or sexual orientation. “Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”

One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.

Among the leading candidates would be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was confirmed to seat in a 97-to-0 Senate vote in May 2013. Srinivasan would be the first South Asian American on the court. He worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office under both Obama and President George W. Bush, and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Other contenders from that same court include its chief judge, Merrick Garland, who is well liked by conservatives and was a finalist for such a nomination when Obama selected Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. Patricia Ann Millett, who won confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in December 2013, may also be considered.

Obama could also look to current or former administration officials, said those familiar with the president’s thinking, or even to the Senate. Among those officials are Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder, the former attorney general. Other potential choices could include Deval Patrick (D), the former governor of Massachusetts, or Paul Smith, who chairs the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block and, if confirmed, would be the first openly gay justice.

Beyond the D.C. Circuit, there are many other appellate judges the president could look to in selecting a nominee. Those include Paul Watford and Mary H. Murguia of the 9th Circuit; Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the 1st Circuit.

Regardless of whom Obama selects, the combination of the timing of the opening, the stark division on the court and deeply partisan passion being evoked in both presidential primaries would make this confirmation battle unlike any of the past 40 years.

The last confirmation in the eighth year of a presidency was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose 97-to-0 vote in February 1988 came after two failed nomination efforts by President Reagan in the face of a Democratic-controlled Senate in late 1987. Kennedy is seen as a traitor among conservative activists, who view his rulings on abortion and gay rights with the liberal bloc as an example of GOP leaders choosing political expediency over ideological rigidity. The only other attempt to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. The Senate blocked Fortas. Subsequently, the other nomination to fill Fortas’s spot as associate justice was withdrawn during the final months of Johnson’s presidency.

Under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Typically, the panel does not consider judicial nominees after mid-May, under a tradition established by the late Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). While chairing the Judiciary Committee, Thurmond declared that he would not take up new judicial nominations within a few months of a presidential election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Filling the post of Scalia, however, will be anything but normal. He was the outspoken champion for the court’s conservative wing and had many admirers in the Senate, including McConnell. Obama’s first two appointments to the court were relatively easy because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan were replacing liberal-leaning justices.

Senate conservatives, already predisposed to not approve of Obama’s choice, might be loath to allow him to replace their judicial hero with a liberal jurist who would tip the court in a left-leaning direction. As of now, Sotomayor and Kagan often sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the most ideologically driven cases, with Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the tie-breaking votes.

If Republicans leave the Scalia seat vacant for any lengthy time, that sets up the chance of a series of 4-to-4 votes in which the ruling of the lower federal court would stand as the law of that particular region of the country.

That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:17 am

John F wrote:
That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.
Even so I say Obama should go for it-it'll be tough but what does he have to lose if he picks someone who is absolutely qualified! Regards, Len

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:49 am

John F wrote:President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”
What a joke. :roll:
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:43 am

lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.
Even so I say Obama should go for it-it'll be tough but what does he have to lose if he picks someone who is absolutely qualified! Regards, Len
Why not? The Republicans didn't filibuster his previous two nominations, and enough voted for them to confirm his next nomination if they do likewise. Which of course they may not. If the Republicans don't want the nomination confirmed, they can vote it down and take the consequences - whatever these may be.
John Francis

arepo
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by arepo » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:03 am

I feel the Republicans squirming and for good reason.

cliftwood

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... 050646&t=4

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:11 am

John F wrote: If the Republicans don't want the nomination confirmed, they can vote it down and take the consequences - whatever these may be.
I am interested in things like this:
"The government will still function in the interim, even if it is a long interim. The court can still decide cases. If it splits 4-4 (as it does every once in a while when one justice or another sits out a case), then the lower court ruling is upheld. That is likely in one major case this term. The court recently heard arguments in a significant challenge to the labor movement over the collection of dues by public-sector unions, and it looked like the plaintiffs would prevail; a tie, without Scalia, would keep the current system intact. Even a run of 4-4 rulings will not create chaos. The outcomes would be more likely to preserve the status quo, especially because the court could wait to take cases until it can resolve them with a clear majority."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magaz ... abc-region

I wonder if they'll come up with other consequences to the court's calendar if it stays 4-4?

I googled for the court's calendar for 2016 but what I got made me decide someone else will have to check all this out! Regards, Len :lol:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... ndars.aspx

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:29 am

John F wrote:
lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.
Even so I say Obama should go for it-it'll be tough but what does he have to lose if he picks someone who is absolutely qualified! Regards, Len
Why not? The Republicans didn't filibuster his previous two nominations, and enough voted for them to confirm his next nomination if they do likewise. Which of course they may not. If the Republicans don't want the nomination confirmed, they can vote it down and take the consequences - whatever these may be.
Yes.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:18 pm

John F wrote:
lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.
Even so I say Obama should go for it-it'll be tough but what does he have to lose if he picks someone who is absolutely qualified! Regards, Len
Why not? The Republicans didn't filibuster his previous two nominations, and enough voted for them to confirm his next nomination if they do likewise. Which of course they may not. If the Republicans don't want the nomination confirmed, they can vote it down and take the consequences - whatever these may be.
The difference of course is that his previous nominations did not change the balance of the court. This one would. The Republicans could be betting on a 4-3 majority if Ginsberg dies or is forced to retire, or they could be thinking that a Republican might just be elected in November, or both. I don't see any way to give them "consequences" that they could not accept indefinitely, at least not for any predictable reason. They have already been playing a long waiting game, and are not going to care about default upholding of lower court rulings when they also control all new appointments to every level of the federal judiciary and have notoriously withheld confirmations to lower courts already. The possibility that this state of affairs could backfire by forcing them to accept a relatively liberal justice while a Democrat is president are remote, and based IMO on wishful thinking. Unless the American electorate makes the Senate Democratic, which is unlikely, the Republicans in the Senate really are holding all the cards.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:22 am

jbuck919 wrote:I don't see any way to give them "consequences" that they could not accept indefinitely, at least not for any predictable reason.
Losing key elections and control of the Senate are consequences the Republicans would certainly want to avoid. Now that the Supreme Court has become an immediate issue in the election, I should think the Republicans - especially incumbents up for reelection - would want to avoid stirring up even more Democratic voters than their current crop of potential nominees is likely to do. Better to stall until the election, and then, when we elect another Democratic president, :) slow the process as much as possible.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:42 am

John F wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:I don't see any way to give them "consequences" that they could not accept indefinitely, at least not for any predictable reason.
Losing key elections and control of the Senate are consequences the Republicans would certainly want to avoid. Now that the Supreme Court has become an immediate issue in the election, I should think the Republicans - especially incumbents up for reelection - would want to avoid stirring up even more Democratic voters than their current crop of potential nominees is likely to do. Better to stall until the election, and then, when we elect another Democratic president, :) slow the process as much as possible.
I get your point, but it does assume that who is on the Supreme Court is an issue large numbers of voters will ever care about. I guess you're more optimistic about their potential and eventual impact in response to that concern than I am. You and I can name every justice on the Court and summarize his or her politics, but there are plenty of voters who do not know the name or politics of a single one and couldn't care less, let alone being informed about the important issues that come before the Court. They tend to think that the President is the entire government, which also explains why whoever holds that office is blamed for everything while Congress, while not liked very much, is often given a pass and is not a major concern for those voters on election day. (I would love it if a poll gave evidence that I was wrong about any or all of this.)

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:46 am

jbuck919 wrote:
John F wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:I don't see any way to give them "consequences" that they could not accept indefinitely, at least not for any predictable reason.
Losing key elections and control of the Senate are consequences the Republicans would certainly want to avoid. Now that the Supreme Court has become an immediate issue in the election, I should think the Republicans - especially incumbents up for reelection - would want to avoid stirring up even more Democratic voters than their current crop of potential nominees is likely to do. Better to stall until the election, and then, when we elect another Democratic president, :) slow the process as much as possible.
I get your point, but it does assume that who is on the Supreme Court is an issue large numbers of voters will ever care about. I guess you're more optimistic about their potential and eventual impact in response to that concern than I am. You and I can name every justice on the Court and summarize his or her politics, but there are plenty of voters who do not know the name or politics of a single one and couldn't care less, let alone being informed about the important issues that come before the Court.
It's the Democrats' responsibility to make sure the voters are aware of the situation and the stakes. They can quote liberally from Scalia's more outrageous opinions, such as that African-Americans aren't smart enough to benefit from going to first-rank colleges. Their task will be made easier by the Republicans, who will doubtless campaign heavily on the need to prevent the Supreme Court turning liberal, aided by flapdoodle from their TV talk show supporters. How it will turn out, nobody knows, but the American voters, or at least those who are or lean Democrat, aren't as ignorant and indifferent as you think. After all, they twice elected Barack Obama president of the United States.
John Francis

arepo
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by arepo » Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:00 pm


John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:23 pm

That about sums it up. Thanks for posting.

P.S. According to today's NY Times, all the Republican senators who are running for reelection this year have agreed not even to consider any nominee put forward by the president. Some of them are from swing states and are not certain to win. It's up to their Democrat opponents to hit them hard about this further abdication of their responsibility to govern, their reversion to do-nothingness after their leader had made such a big deal about getting important things done, and take back the Senate. Here's hoping.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by RebLem » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:11 am

rwetmore wrote:Wow, shocking news. He was about the only one who actually upheld the constitution.
Blah, blah, foo.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:27 am

This is silly. There are like 80 years of precedence of not accepting Supreme Court nominations in an election year, and I think even around 1960 a Democrat controlled Senate tried to pass a resolution establishing such a rule. Besides, it's more than just an election year -- Obama is in his second term and cannot run for re-election, so it makes even more sense in this scenario. Moreover, the whole point is he wants to stack the court so he can get his unconstitutional executive orders upheld. Stacking the court with judges who will not uphold the limits placed on the executive branch -- in particular the Presidency, is just another way of shifting power and control away from the electorate, i.e. the people, because one can't get his or her agenda through the legislative process.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:56 am

rwetmore wrote:This is silly. There are like 80 years of precedence of not accepting Supreme Court nominations in an election year
I think you're on shakey and possibly silly ground yourself-read this. Regards, Len



In Election Years, a History of Confirming Court Nominees

By TIMOTHY S. HUEBNERFEB. 16, 2016


MEMPHIS — “THE American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, announced after news of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.

“Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Many of the Republican presidential contenders have heartily endorsed this argument.

Contrary to those claims, however, President Obama has constitutional and historical precedent on his side and should announce a nominee.

Article II of the Constitution directs the president to nominate and, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” appoint judges of the Supreme Court. (“He shall,” it says.) Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that this power

does not apply in an election year.


In fact, history supports Mr. Obama. On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. This does not include the most recent and

frequently cited example, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in November 1987 to fill a vacancy and won confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate in February 1988.
Photo
In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court included two justices, Benjamin Cardozo (standing, far left) and Louis Brandeis (seated, second from right) who filled vacancies that occurred during a presidential election year. Credit Associated Press

In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement.

In the first of these instances, in January 1804, Justice Alfred Moore resigned from the court, and President Thomas Jefferson, who was running for a second term, successfully nominated a successor. In January 1892, the death of Justice

Joseph Bradley prompted President Benjamin Harrison to nominate George Shiras Jr. to take his place. Although Mr. Harrison was locked in a race for re-election against Grover Cleveland, the Senate confirmed Mr. Shiras at the end of

July. Mr. Harrison lost, but Justice Shiras remained on the court for the next decade.

In January 1916, as President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election, the death of Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar created one vacancy on the court, and that summer the resignation of Justice Charles Evans Hughes created another. Mr. Wilson

filled both seats: the January opening with Louis D. Brandeis, and the July vacancy with John H. Clarke. Mr. Wilson won a second term.

In January 1932, when few expected Herbert Hoover to win a second term, Justice Oliver W. Holmes retired from the court. Rather than wait until after the election, President Hoover nominated and the Senate confirmed Benjamin N. Cardozo,

a great justice. Even the Great Depression did not prevent the president and the Senate from fulfilling their constitutional duties.

In March 1888, when Chief Justice Morrison Waite died suddenly and unexpectedly — not unlike Justice Scalia — just as President Grover Cleveland was running for a second term, the president nominated a new chief justice, Melville W.

Fuller, to replace him. The Senate confirmed the nomination at the end of July.

Of course, none of these represents an exact parallel to today’s situation. In all but one of these instances, the president and Senate majority were of the same political party, unlike today. Only Mr. Cleveland (a Democrat) faced a

Senate controlled by the opposition party, while President Hoover’s Republican Party held only a one-vote majority in the Senate. Still, in both of these instances, the nominees were confirmed by wide margins. In fact, the 1932

confirmation of Justice Cardozo was unanimous.

Three times presidents who were on their way out of office — “lame ducks” in the truest sense — appointed justices to the court. In December 1800, the resignation of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth allowed John Adams, who had already

lost to Thomas Jefferson, the chance to select the justice’s successor. Mr. Adams chose John Marshall, who went on to serve 34 years as the nation’s fourth and greatest chief justice. In February 1845, a month before he left office,

John Tyler nominated Samuel Nelson, who won Senate confirmation and served for the next 27 years.

And when the resignation of Justice William Strong occurred after the 1880 election, the departing president, Rutherford B. Hayes — not his successor, James A. Garfield — nominated Justice Strong’s successor, Justice William B. Woods.
Continue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

In the Adams and Tyler examples, two unpopular departing executives carried out their constitutional duties and overcame political factionalism from inside and outside of their own parties.

To be sure, the Senate has rejected nominees for political reasons, increased the size of the court (for instance, during the Civil War) or reduced it (immediately after the Civil War). But in cases when vacancies have arisen during

election years, the weight of history is clearly on the side of the president naming a successor and the Senate acting on that nomination.

The Republicans, who frequently cite the Constitution and look to historical precedent, have an opportunity to be true to their principles. They should ignore Donald Trump’s urging to “delay, delay, delay,” and help ensure our

Constitution functions as it should — and as it has in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opini ... -col-left-

region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:41 am

RebLem wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Wow, shocking news. He was about the only one who actually upheld the constitution.
Blah, blah, foo.
Scalia's approach, construing the words in the Constitution according to what they originally meant instead of what they denote and connote today, is perverse. As he himself said, it reduces the Constitution to a "dead document." He had no problem with that, but I certainly do. It's surely the courts' function and duty to explain and apply what the law means today, not what it meant two centuries ago.

What's more, even with this approach - over-intellectual or anti-intellectual, I can't decide which - it doesn't follow that the Court's decisions must conform to the conservative or libertarian doctrines that Scalia mainly adhered to. It may not be irrelevant to his judicial role in cases involving birth control, abortion, and same sex marriage that he was a traditional and devout Roman Catholic with 9 children and 36 grandchildren.

In last night's PBS Newshour, Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center observed that the same approach can support progressive (read: liberal) decisions. She said:
Elizabeth Wydra wrote:As a progressive, I disagreed with Justice Scalia on many if not most of the outcomes of cases. But I absolutely agree with his embrace of the Constitution’s text and history. And my organization, the Constitutional Accountability Center, was formed almost in a reaction to Justice Scalia’s strong embrace of text and history.

But as he strongly advocated for conservative outcomes based on the text and history in the Supreme Court, progressives like me and like CAC were inspired to say no from our perspective. Let’s disagree on this, but let’s talk about that text and history. And when we look at it, we think it supports progressive outcomes...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-scal ... -exciting/

Wydra observed that in the last year or so, the Court's majority including conservatives like John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy did indeed use this approach to reach decisions that Scalia didn't like. When that happened, he would lambaste them in notoriously intemperate dissents whose actual substance was no more solidly based than the majority's decisions. Unable to persuade his colleagues in behind-the-scenes discussion, he publicly accused them of bad faith or stupidity - not only disrespectful of his colleagues but essentially no more than bad temper and sour grapes.

On an intellectual level, Scalia claimed that the only right way to interpret a law, and the Constitution, was through the literal meanings of the words they finally comprise. The previous approach, which for generations also took into account a law's or the Constitution's legislative history to clarify what those who wrote it intended it to mean and to accomplish, was literally put out of court. But though simple, not to say simple-minded, that view puts an excessive burden after the fact on the precision with which the Constitution or the law is drafted; the Congressmen and Senators and their staff did not expect their work to be so minutely examined in future cases whose issues and facts they could not possibly have foreseen. And it doesn't allow for the compromises in which a small minority, sometimes a minority of one such as a committee chairman, has blocked passage or even consideration of a proposed law until his personal preference is written into it, or at least not excluded from it - this even when a big majority of the legislators do not want or intend that compromise.

Scalia set himself up as a kind of pedantic schoolteacher, critiquing the language of the law as a teacher might a student's writing assignment and scolding its framers when he wasn't satisfied. Now he's gone, and good riddance.
rwetmore wrote:There are like 80 years of precedence of not accepting Supreme Court nominations in an election year
What Len said. Just because these precedents are some distance in the past, does not wipe them out. A precedent is a precedent, no matter how old, once established in law or in custom, as any lawyer can confirm; we are still governed by laws passed long before we were born. Including this law, the Judiciary Act of 1869, which reads in part:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices
Any undue and deliberate delay in meeting the law's requirement that the number of Supreme Court justices be kept at nine, whether it's the president or the Senate that delays, is breaking the law. And a delay of nearly a year, whose reason is merely the outcome of an election many months in the future, is outside the law and therefore not legal. So much for the rule of law.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by jbuck919 » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:26 pm

I heard a short commentary today by the author of this new book. Sounds like a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/Unfit-Democracy-B ... 0814732429

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:12 pm

Look, I'm going to sum this up nice and succinctly for everyone:

The constitution says "the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate”

Obama has every right to nominate a replacement justice, and the Senate has every right to withhold consent.

Anything peddled beyond this from either side is just political spin.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:43 pm

Obama Pledges to Nominate a Successor to Justice Scalia
By MARK LANDLER and JENNIFER STEINHAUER
FEB. 16, 2016

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. — President Obama on Tuesday challenged Republicans to offer any plausible rationale for refusing to consider a Supreme Court candidate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last weekend, and he pledged to nominate someone with an “outstanding legal mind” who cares about democracy and the rule of law.

“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference after a meeting in California with leaders of Southeast Asia. He said the Constitution demands that a president nominate someone for the court and the Senate either confirms or rejects. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not in the Constitutional text.”

Mr. Obama said he understood the political stakes of a nomination that could change the balance on the court. “I understand the pressure that Republican senators are now under,” he said. “This would be a deciding vote.” But the president said the Supreme Court ought to be above political gamesmanship. “This will be a test of whether rules, norms, and fair play can function at all in Washington,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s remarks were his first extensive public reaction to the roiling political forces unleashed by the death of Justice Scalia. He reiterated his intention to nominate a successor and called on the Senate to give that person a hearing, followed by a timely vote. “The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen,” Mr. Obama said. “When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president of the United States is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination. Either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Obama made his comments shortly after Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he had not ruled out holding hearings on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. “I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions,” Mr. Grassley said, according to Radio Iowa. “This is a very serious position to fill and it should be filled and debated during the campaign and filled by either Hillary Clinton, Senator Sanders or whoever’s nominated by the Republicans.” [Note: this is an obvious self-contradiction. If the position is filled during the campaign it can only be by President Obama.]

The remarks seemed to be a step back from Mr. Grassley’s statement on Saturday, in which he concurred with Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and several other Republican senators, who said the vacancy ought to be filled by the next president. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement Saturday, after Mr. Scalia’s death was revealed. But in 2008, Mr. Grassley argued against delays in the consideration of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees by the Senate, then controlled by Democrats.

Whether Mr. Grassley would be able to hold hearings when Mr. McConnell and others are balking is an open question. Mr. McConnell has emphasized that committee chairmen have considerable autonomy under his leadership. Mr. Grassley will no doubt feel pressure on multiple fronts, including from Democrats, with whom he has had good relations on the committee.

Mr. Grassley, who has long prided himself on embodying the good governance ethos of Iowa, found himself the subject of criticism on the editorial pages of the state’s largest newspaper, The Des Moines Register. “This could have been a ‘profile in courage’ moment for Senator Grassley,” the paper wrote in an editorial published Tuesday before Mr. Grassley’s remarks to Iowa reporters. “This was an opportunity for our senior senator to be less of a politician and more of a statesman. It was a chance for him to be principled rather than partisan.”

Mr. Grassley, 82, is seeking a seventh term in the Senate in November.

Democrats quickly seized on Mr. Grassley’s remarks as evidence of what they think will be mounting pressure on Republicans to at least hold hearings on any nominee Mr. Obama brings forward. “When the hard right doesn’t get its way, their immediate reaction is, ‘Shut it down’ — and the Republican leadership marches in lock step,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, in a prepared statement. “They did it in 2013 when they tried to shut down the government, and they’re doing it today with their attempt to shut down the Supreme Court. But, just as in 2013, when there was a huge public outcry and the Republican leadership had to back off, the same will happen now — and they will have to back off this extreme, partisan stance.”

Mr. Grassley has a history of struggling on committees to find the sweet spot between his own political leanings and policy convictions. In the 2009 health care negotiations, when he served on the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley worked for months to reach an accord with Democrats long after other Republicans had backed out. But under the pressure brought by Tea Party activists, he withdrew. Many were surprised more recently when Mr. Grassley changed his long-held position against a criminal justice overhaul to get on board with members of both parties to work on a bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/po ... minee.html
John Francis

Ricordanza
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:58 am
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Ricordanza » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:49 am

rwetmore wrote:Obama has every right to nominate a replacement justice, and the Senate has every right to withhold consent.
The constitutional way for the Senate to withhold consent is to vote against the nominee. The Senate Republicans, on the other hand, are proposing to avoid a vote, either through blocking the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or by filibuster if the matter comes to the floor of the Senate.

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:52 am

Ricordanza wrote:The constitutional way for the Senate to withhold consent is to vote against the nominee.
The constitution does not specify this.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:31 pm

Here is an interesting piece:

5 Reasons Republicans Shouldn’t Fear A SCOTUS Fight

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/17/fiv ... tus-fight/

I agree.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:50 pm

Ricordanza wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Obama has every right to nominate a replacement justice, and the Senate has every right to withhold consent.
The constitutional way for the Senate to withhold consent is to vote against the nominee. The Senate Republicans, on the other hand, are proposing to avoid a vote, either through blocking the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or by filibuster if the matter comes to the floor of the Senate.
That is allowed by the rules the Senate has written for himself, which are always subject to change whenever the Senate feels like it. As you say, this has no basis in the Constitution.
John Francis

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:19 am

Linda Greenhouse used to be the PBS NewsHour's Supreme Court correspondent but was replaced a few years ago, I don't know why. She's a well informed and canny observer, and she followed Scalia closely and knew him well. Here's what she has to say in this morning's NY Times:

Resetting the Post-Scalia Supreme Court
Linda Greenhouse
FEB. 18, 2016

In the days since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, there has been plenty of talk about the substantial impact his absence will have on the Supreme Court’s docket. I’d like to shift the focus to the Roberts court itself. Fate has handed the justices a chance to hit reset.

If that seems an uncharitable, even tasteless observation, so be it. I’ve become increasingly concerned...that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalia’s outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.

I’m not claiming that he was completely responsible. Given the Supreme Court’s place in American life, there is no way it can avoid getting singed by the polarizing politics of the day. Nor was Justice Scalia solely to blame for the court’s drop in public esteem as demonstrated by a Gallup Poll in September showing that more people disapprove of the Supreme Court (50 percent) than approve of it (45 percent). While this is a notable departure from the historic trend, other governmental bodies have fared far worse (Congress has a 16 percent approval rating), and the court is to some degree caught in the back draft of generalized public mistrust of government.

It’s a situation that nonetheless calls for concern and exquisite care. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to reflect that concern, and not for the first time, when he spoke earlier this month at New England School of Law in Boston. Contrary to the impression created by highly partisan Senate confirmation hearings, he said, Supreme Court justices are not in pursuit of an agenda and “don’t work as Republicans or Democrats.”

Maybe not, but two weeks before the chief justice’s visit to Boston, the court, acting on its own motion, turned a statutory case into a major constitutional one when it expanded its review of President Obama’s deportation-deferral program to include the question of whether the president has violated his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” And a few days after the Boston visit, the court took the astonishing step of blocking the administration’s major climate-change initiative before a lower court had even had a chance to review it.

The “take care” question mapped perfectly onto the dissent that Justice Scalia read from the bench in June 2012 when the court struck down portions of Arizona’s anti-immigrant statute. (Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority.) Justice Scalia took the occasion to excoriate the Obama administration for an earlier version of its deportation-deferral program — a policy that was not at issue in the Supreme Court case and had not even been announced when the case was argued. “Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia demanded, in a public performance that was as inappropriate as it was attention getting.

The Feb. 9 order blocking the president’s Clean Power Plan was issued without explanation and over the dissents of the court’s four liberals. I don’t know whether Justice Scalia was the driving force behind this highly unusual intervention in an ongoing regulatory review. But clearly it couldn’t have happened without him. Neither could the court’s other recent destabilizing interventions, including the 5-to-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The voting rights decision was a pet project of Chief Justice Roberts, an opponent of the Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. But Justice Scalia was much more than just a passenger. His behavior during the oral argument gave a public face to the ugliness behind the attack on the foundational civil rights law, which both houses of Congress had reauthorized by overwhelming margins. Addressing Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. during the argument on Feb. 27, 2013, Justice Scalia referred to the 2006 reauthorization and observed:

“And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”

A “phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement”? “It’s been written about”? I must have missed that reading assignment.

Then, two months ago, Justice Scalia’s comment during the argument in the University of Texas affirmative-action case embraced the so-called mismatch theory beloved by opponents of affirmative action when he said that some minority students would benefit from “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.” I can only assume that somewhere out there is a tract that equates protection of the right to vote with perpetuation of racial entitlement.

His frequent parroting of right-wing talking points in recent years may have reflected the contraction of his intellectual universe. In an interview with the writer Jennifer Senior (now a New York Times book critic) in New York magazine in 2013, Justice Scalia said he got most of his news from the car radio and from skimming The Wall Street Journal and the conservative Washington Times. He said he stopped reading The Washington Post because it had become so “shrilly, shrilly liberal” that he “couldn’t handle it anymore.”

And while earlier in his Supreme Court tenure, he prided himself on hiring one politically liberal law clerk among his four clerks every year, he abandoned that practice at least a decade ago. In a recently completed (and as yet unpublished) study, Neal Devins, a law professor at William and Mary, and Lawrence Baum, a political scientist at Ohio State, calculated the percentage of each justice’s law clerks over the past 11 years who had previously clerked for a Democratic-appointed judge on a lower court. (This is a measure that scholars deem an acceptable proxy for the ideological orientation of a justice’s chambers.) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ranked the highest, with 76.7 percent of her clerks having earlier clerked for Democratic-appointed judges. The figure for Chief Justice Roberts was 16.3 percent. Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas were tied for the lowest, at 2.3 percent each.

In their paper, “Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court Into a Partisan Court,” the authors offer their observations about the elite social networks in which Supreme Court justices, no less than other power players in Washington, spend their lives. They note “a growing ideological divide among affluent, well-educated Democrats and Republicans,” with the result that “Democratic elites are more liberal than other Democrats; Republican elites are more conservative than other Republicans.” For the Supreme Court, they conclude, “justices on both the left and right are part of social networks that reinforce conservatism for Republican justices and liberalism for Democratic justices.”

These insights might help explain why someone as smart as Antonin Scalia seemed so un-self-conscious about his inflammatory rhetoric. He was simply giving voice to those he spent his time with. His world was one that reinforced and never challenged him.

About 10 years ago, I attended a gathering of Canadian judges and lawyers at Cambridge University. Justice Scalia gave his stump speech there about how his Constitution was not “living” but “dead,” with legitimate constitutional interpretation limited to the words and original understanding of the document’s authors. He may or may not have known that in Canada, constitutional interpretation starts from the premise that “the Constitution is a living tree.” In any event, his speech fell flat; rather than greeting his remarks with the appreciative chuckles and applause he usually received, the audience sat on its hands. I remember his disconcerted expression.

Justice Scalia received relatively few opinion assignments in major cases, either from Chief Justice Roberts or Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, with whom he served for 19 years. The reason was obvious: He refused to compromise, a trait that put him at risk of losing a majority in close cases. I used to wonder why he didn’t value effectiveness over perfection, why he would not rather compromise than lose. But I came to realize that Justice Scalia wasn’t playing the inside game. No matter that he never persuaded a majority of his fellow conservatives on the court to sign up for his brand of originalism.

What mattered was his ability to invoke originalism as a mobilizing tool outside the court, in speeches and in dissenting opinions. The message was that courts have no business recognizing “new” rights. (Except, evidently, new rights of which Justice Scalia approved, such as an unconstrained right for corporations to spend money in politics.) The audience for his dissents, he told Ms. Senior in the New York magazine interview, was law students. The mission he set for himself was cultivating the next generation.

For a long time, he did a good job of addressing the public outside the court’s marble walls. In 2003, his dissenting opinion in the gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas warned that the court’s declaration of constitutional protection for same-sex relationships would lead to protection for same-sex marriage. State after state heeded the warning and enacted same-sex marriage bans.

Ten years later, when he dissented from the court’s overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, which found that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits, he warned that the decision made the constitutional right to same-sex marriage inevitable. “No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe,” he wrote. Within a matter of months, federal district judges around the country invoked Justice Scalia’s dissent in striking down same-sex marriage bans. The much less polemical dissent in Windsor by Chief Justice Roberts, describing the decision as a narrow one based on principles of federalism, went uncited.

Had Justice Scalia overreached? Lost his touch? Or had times changed so that not even the most mild-mannered dissent could have stemmed the tide? Hard to say. Still, people listened, just as they did last June when the court ruled for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges and Justice Scalia wrote that before he would ever join such an opinion “I would hide my head in a bag.”

Since everyone who ever met Justice Scalia is telling Scalia stories, I’ll tell mine. The last conversation we had took place in the spring of 2013, on a Washington-bound Amtrak Acela. I noticed him sitting across the aisle from me, wearing headphones and working. He didn’t notice me, and I didn’t bother him. But when we stood to collect our things, we found ourselves face to face. “So, Linda,” he said, “what do you think of the new pope?”

This was such an unexpected conversation opener that I didn’t know what to say. Pope Francis had been chosen just a few days earlier. I was hardly qualified to discuss the first Jesuit pope with a Jesuit-trained Supreme Court justice. “I’m surprised they picked someone so old,” I finally managed. “Well, he’s a transitional figure,” Justice Scalia said. I was too nonplused to ask him what he meant: transition from what to what? (I can only imagine how the deeply traditional, Latin Mass-attending Justice Scalia came to regard Pope Francis as time went by.) Our train pulled into Union Station and the moment passed.

Antonin Scalia was, as everyone has noted, a unique figure on the Supreme court. Will he prove to have been a transitional one as well? Will originalism, having served its purpose, now leave the stage?

For the court and the country, this is an important moment in every possible respect. As Justice Scalia’s colleagues gather later this week for the ceremonial marking of his passing, they will be taking stock of a life. Some of them, perhaps, will also be taking stock of the court, where it has been and where it goes now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opini ... court.html
John Francis

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:37 am

John F wrote:
Ricordanza wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Obama has every right to nominate a replacement justice, and the Senate has every right to withhold consent.
The constitutional way for the Senate to withhold consent is to vote against the nominee. The Senate Republicans, on the other hand, are proposing to avoid a vote, either through blocking the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or by filibuster if the matter comes to the floor of the Senate.
That is allowed by the rules the Senate has written for himself, which are always subject to change whenever the Senate feels like it. As you say, this has no basis in the Constitution.
The constitution does not stipulate that the Senate must have a vote on the President's nominees. Again, this is all political spin. Withholding consent by having or not having a vote is none the less withholding consent, and that is what they have the power to do. It is at the Senate's discretion entirely.

BTW, this issue is making a lot of people look foolish and hypocritical. If the situation were reversed, you'd be saying the exact opposite.

BTW, also -- the same can be said of the President. He's not obligated to provide a nomination to fill the vacancy. It is at his discretion entirely. If he wants to chose to let it go until the next administration, he can do that. If he wants to nominate, he can. It really is this simple.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

arepo
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by arepo » Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:35 am

Edhttp://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160215_ ... _THAN_GOOD.

Editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News today..


cliftwood

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:45 am

arepo wrote:Edhttp://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160215_ ... _THAN_GOOD.

Editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News today..


cliftwood
Funny I couldn't open your link but googled Philadelphia Daily News THAN_GOOD

and got to read it:

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20 ... _GOOD.html

is the link I used. Regards, Len

arepo
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by arepo » Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:06 pm

Thanks, Len. My computer skills are lacking.

I thought the editorial was very telling.

Best,

cliftwood

P.S. we're seeing one of my very favorite sopranos, Sandra Radvanovsky at the Met , Saturday afternoon.

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:16 pm

arepo wrote:
P.S. we're seeing one of my very favorite sopranos, Sandra Radvanovsky at the Met , Saturday afternoon.
I enjoyed the article-thanks. Sandra Radvanovsky is a favorite of ours too-we'll see her next in Roberto Devereux.. Regards, Len

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:41 pm

Someone agrees with me:

No hearings. No votes
by Hugh Hewitt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-he ... le/2583279
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:59 pm

Hugh Hewitt is parroting the same old falsehoods:
Hugh Hewitt wrote:Lame duck presidents don't get to make successful nominations for lifetime appointments in an election year. Not in 2016. Not for the past 80 years.
There were no lame duck presidents in Hewitt's sense before ratification of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution in 1951. That's 65 years ago, not 80. Before that, a president became a lame duck only when he had been defeated for reelection or wasn't going to run; from Election Day to Inauguration Day for the new president is less than 2 months, not enough time for a Supreme Court justice to die, a successor to be nominated, and confirmation to be voted on.

The precedent to which the 80 years mantra refers is the appointment of Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 by Herbert Hoofer, in February of what was to be the last year of his presidency. But at the time of the appointment, he was not a lame duck - he was running for reelection and the election was months away. Present-day Republicans might take note that Cardozo, one of the great Supreme Court judges of all time, was admired by both parties, he was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote by Republicans and Democrats alike, and Democratic senator Clarence C. Dill called Hoover's appointment of Cardozo "the finest act of his career as President." We should have more such appointments in our presidents' last year, or any year, and more such putting of partisanship aside for the good of the country.
Hugh Hewitt wrote:And to make it crystal clear, it isn't about an individual but the institution of the court. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that there would be no confirmations this year even before President Obama declared he'd make a nomination anyway.
Bull. President Obama made that declaration on February 13, the very same day that Justice Scalia's body was found. If McConnell got in first, it was a matter of hours, which is trivial. And it's simply not true that McConnell's declaration "isn't about an individual." It's about the individual he seemingly hates the most, President Obama.
Hugh Hewitt wrote:[Republican senators seeking reelection] have little choice but to stand with McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and refuse hearings and votes for the president's nominee or be soundly defeated in the fall.
Hewitt spoke too soon. Two days later, Senator Grassley said he would wait to see whom Obama nominates before making a decision on hearings - he thinks he has a choice, as of course he does. This matters because Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which would hold those hearings. If he says yes, there aren't enough other Republicans on the committee to override him; a vote along party lines, except for Grassley, would be a tie.

And then there's Senator Lindsay Graham, a senior Republican member of the committee. When he voted to confirm President Obama's nominee Elena Kagan, he said:
Lindsay Graham wrote:We lost. President Obama won. I've got a lot of opportunity to disagree, but the Constitution, in my view, puts an obligation on me not to replace my judgment for his, not to think of the hundred reasons I would pick someone different... I view my duty as to protect the Judiciary and to ensure that hard-fought elections have meaning in our system. I'm going to vote for her because I believe this election has consequences. And this president chose someone who is qualified to serve on this court and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician. At the end of the day, it wasn't a hard decision... She would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, chose wisely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_G ... .S._Senate

We'll see whether he now changes his tune, and what rationale he may give for doing so.
John Francis

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:36 pm

John F wrote:Hugh Hewitt is parroting the same old falsehoods:
Hugh Hewitt wrote:Lame duck presidents don't get to make successful nominations for lifetime appointments in an election year. Not in 2016. Not for the past 80 years.
There were no lame duck presidents in Hewitt's sense before ratification of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution in 1951. That's 65 years ago, not 80. Before that, a president became a lame duck only when he had been defeated for reelection or wasn't going to run; from Election Day to Inauguration Day for the new president is less than 2 months, not enough time for a Supreme Court justice to die, a successor to be nominated, and confirmation to be voted on.
So what? I fail to see your point. Obama will be a lame duck President in November, because he cannot run for re-election.
John F wrote:The precedent to which the 80 years mantra refers is the appointment of Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 by Herbert Hoofer, in February of what was to be the last year of his presidency. But at the time of the appointment, he was not a lame duck - he was running for reelection and the election was months away. Present-day Republicans might take note that Cardozo, one of the great Supreme Court judges of all time, was admired by both parties, he was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote by Republicans and Democrats alike, and Democratic senator Clarence C. Dill called Hoover's appointment of Cardozo "the finest act of his career as President." We should have more such appointments in our presidents' last year, or any year, and more such putting of partisanship aside for the good of the country.
You fail to recognize that prior to FDR, Supreme Court nominations and confirmations were generally not partisan (or at least anywhere near what they are today). They didn't need to be in anyone's mind, because back then generally everyone in government, including Presidents and Supreme Court Justices, actually believed in and felt obligated to follow the constitution as it was originally intended. So did the general pubic. This is no longer the case.
John F wrote:
Hugh Hewitt wrote:And to make it crystal clear, it isn't about an individual but the institution of the court. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that there would be no confirmations this year even before President Obama declared he'd make a nomination anyway.
Bull. President Obama made that declaration on February 13, the very same day that Justice Scalia's body was found. If McConnell got in first, it was a matter of hours, which is trivial. And it's simply not true that McConnell's declaration "isn't about an individual." It's about the individual he seemingly hates the most, President Obama.
It doesn't matter what his or their reason is. It is solely at their consent (the Senate's consent) that Supreme Court Justices get appointed. I can think of no other President in recent history who -- if at all possible -- should not be allowed to get the Supreme Court Justices he wants more than Obama, who at every possible turn has given the limits the constitution places on his office the middle finger. Especially in his last year where he cannot run for re-election, and where there is 80 years of precedence not to do so for any President.
John F wrote:
Hugh Hewitt wrote:[Republican senators seeking reelection] have little choice but to stand with McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and refuse hearings and votes for the president's nominee or be soundly defeated in the fall.
Hewitt spoke too soon. Two days later, Senator Grassley said he would wait to see whom Obama nominates before making a decision on hearings - he thinks he has a choice, as of course he does. This matters because Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which would hold those hearings. If he says yes, there aren't enough other Republicans on the committee to override him; a vote along party lines, except for Grassley, would be a tie.
Of course, Senators are free to do what they want within the rules of the Senate. It's their seat, and they can act how they see fit.
John F wrote:And then there's Senator Lindsay Graham, a senior Republican member of the committee. When he voted to confirm President Obama's nominee Elena Kagan, he said:
Lindsay Graham wrote:We lost. President Obama won. I've got a lot of opportunity to disagree, but the Constitution, in my view, puts an obligation on me not to replace my judgment for his,
Well, he can have that view, but the language of constitution doesn't put that obligation on him. Again, it's ultimately at the Senate's consent, and of course they can chose to give consent for any reason they wish.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:48 pm

But what's really going on here with Obama is he desperately wants to stack the court so he can get his agenda through without having to go through the legislative process. Much of which, i.e. his numerous executive orders bypassing Congress, has been shot down by the court. Stacking the court is just another way of shifting power and control away from the electorate, i.e. the people, and putting more power in the hands of those who desire to force their will on the country without its genuine consent. That's what this is about -- at least to those of us who know what's really going on.

All of this talk from Obama about Constitutional duty and stuff is ridiculously insincere and complete BS.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:04 am

rwetmore wrote:All of this talk from Obama about Constitutional duty and stuff is ridiculously insincere and complete BS.
the same applies to you, and all the crap you insist on trolling here.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:23 am

Chalkperson wrote:
rwetmore wrote:All of this talk from Obama about Constitutional duty and stuff is ridiculously insincere and complete BS.
the same applies to you, and all the crap you insist on trolling here.
Chalkie may have to disagree with you-it only applies to Rwet and not the rest of us! Regards, Len [out the door] :lol:

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:56 am

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/repu ... -1.2536350

Krauthammer agrees with me on this. As I said, many people are making themselves look like utter fools and hypocrites on this issue.

Speaking of fools, the Republican controlled Senate would be complete fools to give Obama even a chance at getting his nominee. They all ought to come out very confidently and state why they are denying him and then let the chips fall where they do.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:02 am

BTW, Obama himself is completely full of sh*t on this issue. If you can't see that, then you are a true dupe.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:59 am

rwetmore wrote:BTW, Obama himself is completely full of sh*t on this issue. If you can't see that, then you are a true dupe.
And you, Randall, are nothing but a Troll.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:01 am

lennygoran wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:
rwetmore wrote:All of this talk from Obama about Constitutional duty and stuff is ridiculously insincere and complete BS.
the same applies to you, and all the crap you insist on trolling here.
Chalkie may have to disagree with you-it only applies to Rwet and not the rest of us! Regards, Len [out the door] :lol:
Randall is the only one i have a problem with, and I reckon we would be much better off without him and his non stop Trolling.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:57 am

Chalkie I disagree with rwet on most issues but doesn`t trolling apply to insulting people personally-where does expressing your opinion on subjects fit in? Len

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests