23
   

Justice Anton Scalia Reportedly Found Dead At Texas Resort

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 08:08 am
@blatham,
yeh, thats a laugh.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 09:48 am
@farmerman,
In further consideration, with the court on a 4 X 4 potential tie(with no replacement), the present cases (like the " ant-Gerrymandering case") would stand with the lower courts decision.
Nothin shabby about that!

Obama', by filling the lower courts during his tenure, was showing us signs that he plays chess.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 10:10 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It seems to me inappropriate for him to talk about a successor and already begin scolding the Republicans about acting on his nomination at the same time he is marking the passing of one of our Supreme Court Justices. Surely this nonsense could have waited and the moment reserved for noting the man's brilliance and significant influence on the nation.

The appropriate time to wait is apparently five minutes:

Quote:
Just five minutes after the San Antonio Express-News broke news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Conn Caroll, communications director for Utah Republican Mike Lee, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this on Twitter: “What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?”


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I didn't know this but apparently no "lame duck" president has nominated a new SC Justice in the last 80 years. If this is the case, than his remarks were even more unseemly because just announcing his intent was a defiant taunt. He can be very petty at times.

There is no such "tradition." The most that can be said is that supreme court justices have, over the past sixty years or so, often timed their resignations to occur during the first two years of a president's tenure in office. There are some practical as well as political reasons for that - I won't go into all the details - but that doesn't amount to a "tradition."

The closest parallel to the current situation was when Earl Warren announced that he would retire in 1968. Warren was afraid (rightly so) that Nixon would win the election that year, so he wanted to give LBJ a shot at naming his replacement. Unfortunately, Johnson chose Abe Fortas, who was regarded by many as little more than LBJ's lackey and who was already embroiled in an ethics scandal that would soon force him off the bench. It was a serious miscalculation on the parts of both Warren (who waited too long to announce his retirement) and Johnson (who picked the one guy who couldn't get confirmation from a Democratic-controlled senate). In the end, Nixon got to replace both Warren and Fortas.

True, that all happened in an election year when LBJ was a lame duck, but that was a unique set of circumstances. It doesn't amount to a "tradition."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 10:21 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
I should add the obvious point that McConnell is pushing a big deceit here if he is implying that the GOP would behave any differently than right now if the next president is a Democrat. They won't.

The next president is going to be Mr. Trump, but hypothetically if the next president were a Democrat, the Republicans might block nominees who were too extreme, but they would not block any nominee whatsoever.

Hopefully the Republicans right now will act quite a bit differently from that, and will refuse to confirm anyone who Mr. Obama nominates no matter what.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:15 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


In fact, before Obama had announced he would be nominating a new SC member, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz (and others on the right) had already made the demand that Obama refrain from nominating anyone as it should be left to the next President to do so. The "defiance" didn't originate in the WH.


You really do have a habit of ignoring the parts of my comments that don't serve what you wish to write in response.

I wrote:
Yes, some of his Republican opponents have been petty and insulting in their criticism of him and anyone that interjected a comment about how the president should uphold this tradition, into their marking Justice Scalia's death are just as petty and unseemly, but he's the president, and they are not. It doesn't excuse them, but I'm afraid I expect more from our president (regardless of party) than I do his critics.


I've no use for the immediate, unseemly politicization of his death by prominent members of either party. You may have wanted to get it on the record that Republican leaders popped off about a replacement nomination, but it doesn't respond, in any meaningful way, to what I've written, and it surely doesn't persuade me to change my mind about Obama. The "others have done it too" defense doesn't hold much water for me.

You wrote:
As to nominations/confirmations in the final year of a term, Chris Hayes noted on twitter that
Quote:
Last time we had this situation: Marshall retiring with a year left in HW Bush's term. In that case,the Dem senate confirmed Clarence Thomas


After savaging the man in confirmation hearings and finding they had no alternative. You and Hayes can hardly hope to convince us of the general collegiality of Democrats by citing the Thomas example.

It's worth noting, tangentially, that during those hearings David Brock (every liberal's favorite turncoat) led the attack against Anita Hill, describing her as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." Apparently, Brock may have, at that point, unintentionally begun providing HRC with political advise because that was indicative of the precise strategy she and her surrogates employed in attacking Bill's "bimbos." (Maureen Dowd is at her best when she writes about the Clintons. See her column in today's NY Times entitledWhen Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism

You wrote:
Others have done a count and found 12 or more SC justices have been confirmed in the final year of a presidential term.


I don't think much of the so-called "tradition," even if it is accurate. I began this thread with the premise that Obama would nominate a replacement. I don't think it's, at all, improper for him to do so. Nor do I expect him to put aside political considerations.

You wrote:
McConnell suggested that it would be inappropriate for Obama to make a nomination now because citizens should choose which president ought to make the nomination. Of course, they already did when they re-elected Obama. So McConnell's claim is bogus. There's no law nor rule in place to validate McConnell's claim nor historical precedent for it based on anything other than mere chance. It's a grasp for power.


Of course it is.

You wrote:
That Scalia's passing represents a very important political event is understood by everybody. One obvious bit of evidence for this is to note how quickly (an hour or two) the announcement of the death was followed by right wing politicos' demand and then a shift in news coverage to the political aspects of this situation.


Of course it does, but it was unseemly of the president to introduce politics, and in his typical belligerent manner, when he was remarking on the passing of a man who deserves the designation of "great" regardless of whether or not one was in tune with his jurisprudence.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:16 am
Quote:
Yes, The Senate Arbitrarily Blocked A SCOTUS Nom Before--In The Mid-1800s
http://bit.ly/1PV0xhu
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Of course it does, but it was unseemly of the president to introduce politics

So, you walk into a house party with your wife on your right arm and to her right, your mother-in-law, who immediately pulls out a bullhorn and booms, "Hey, heads up here! The lovely lady on my left is my daughter Helena and the midget beside her is her husband!"

Then, an hour later, you and your wife are sitting on the sofa and you mention to a guest that it's your wife and her name is Helena.

Are you introducing her?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:39 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I should add the obvious point that McConnell is pushing a big deceit here if he is implying that the GOP would behave any differently than right now if the next president is a Democrat. They won't.


Well, it will depend upon who that Democrat president nominates. Conservatives will be loath to confirm a liberal in replacement of a conservative, but even if they hold the Senate for another four years they can't stall filling a USSC seat for that long. If a President Sanders or Clinton nominates someone who is, if not a "moderate," at least a cipher then I would expect the person's confirmation. If, on the other hand, someone like Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu is nominated, we can expect a fight.

I think Obama is inclined towards nominating an "in your face" candidate since there is very little chance anyone he nominates will make it through the process before he leaves office, but if he takes a purely political approach, his party would be better served by him nominating one of the folks who have already made the media's short list, as candidates with the potential of being confirmed http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987836/obama-supreme-court-shortlist

The Republican held Senate is most likely not going to confirm any candidate Obama nominates when there is a chance that a Republican president in 2017 can replace Scalia with a conservative, but rejecting someone who can be described as a "moderate" will advance the Democrats' argument that Republicans are willing to shut down every aspect of the government to get their way. I don't think it will be a very significant weapon during the general election campaign, but to have any chance, the nominee can't be an unapologetic liberal
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:58 am
Quote:
Robert Reich

51 mins ·

My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)

Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate.

Since he became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t tipped his hand. But I discovered one morsel of information that might interest you: In 2000, he worked on Al Gore’s legal team in the infamous Supreme Court case of “Bush v. Gore.”

My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee with get a majority of Senate votes. What do you think?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 02:08 pm
C-SPAN file on Reagan announcment November, 1987
Quote:
President Reagan on "Constitutional obligation"
“...to join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the United States Supreme Court to full strength."
http://cs.pn/1odNywK
Fox News, as we know, will be getting right on this with their crack news team and then playing this repeatedly because it's how they roll over there.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 03:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The "others have done it too" defense doesn't hold much water for me.

No, you much prefer the "it doesn't matter if others have done it so long as Obama did it too" defense.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 07:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Obama', by filling the lower courts during his tenure, was showing us signs that he plays chess.

Given the fellow's academic background, I'd imagine he's quite clear on what the Federalist Society has been up to and how effective it has been.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 07:47 pm
I readily confess to being a dilettante in US constitutional law (not to mention in most everything else) but goddamn, I miss Ronald Dworkin. http://bv.ms/1KQ5GY2
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  8  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 09:15 pm
In thinking of Scalia's death, I can't help but be reminded of the scene in Amadeus, when Salieri is recounting his childhood, and how his father opposed his budding musical career. It looked like his ambitions would be thwarted, but then, as Salieri tells his confessor, "a miracle happened!" At which point the scene shifts to show his father choke to death on a piece of food.

That's sorta' how I feel about Scalia. There were some very consequential cases coming before the supreme court this session, and, as is customary, they were mostly pushed to the end of the calendar. Many, like an affirmative action case and a public-sector union case, looked like they would be 5-4 decisions overturning established precedent and in which Scalia was expected to be in the majority. Disaster loomed, but then a miracle happened! (scene shifts to Scalia dropping dead in his hotel room).

I'm sorry that Scalia died. He was, by all accounts, a very amiable and charming guy, and he was definitely the funniest member of the court. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that the country isn't better off now that he's gone.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 09:24 pm
@joefromchicago,
I like the way you said that, Joe, and I agree wholeheartedly.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 09:25 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

But it would be disingenuous to pretend that the country isn't better off now that he's gone.


Go **** yourself.

My country is NOT better off for it.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2016 11:18 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
My country is NOT better off for it.

Your country, Reaganland, will eventually disappear. That is also a good thing.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 04:21 am
Two excellent posts . . . Joe has provided some much needed entertainment in an otherwise deadly boring news cycle. My god, i almost found myself discussing The Donald with someone yesterday. Thanks, Joe.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:04 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
But it would be disingenuous to pretend that the country isn't better off now that he's gone.

Justice Scalia was instrumental in preventing the Left from violating our fundamental rights. Few people did more good for our country than he did.

If the Democrats are permitted to replace him with someone who is devoted to the abolition of liberty, the country will be much more worse off. Although luckily there is ample precedent for not confirming whoever Mr. Obama's nominates.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:05 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Your country, Reaganland, will eventually disappear. That is also a good thing.

Thanks to the damage that the 2013 gun control debacle did to Mr. Obama's second term, Mr. Trump is on the verge of such a stunning victory over the Democrats that he will be able to remake the Republican Party to suit his views. So yes, Reaganism is soon to be replaced by Trumpism.

But it's going to be much much worse for Left. It's going to be a good 20 years before the Democrats have any chance of winning the White House again. And when they finally do manage to win again, it won't be with any sort of Liberal candidate.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 12:06:10