PDA

View Full Version : Antonin Scalia dead at age 79



citanon
14 Feb 16,, 00:07
News just hit the wires. No details yet other than it was in Texas where he was vacationing.

citanon
14 Feb 16,, 00:31
would a mod kindly correct my misspelling of justice Scalia's first name?

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 00:34
The Repubs, better man up and block any nominations for the rest of the year! Otherwise, the Union may be doomed.

zraver
14 Feb 16,, 00:36
The Repubs, better man up and block any nominations for the rest of the year! Otherwise, the Union may be doomed.

Get out of my head!

citanon
14 Feb 16,, 01:23
Get out of my head!

I think we just had a resonance in the collective consciousness.

bonehead
14 Feb 16,, 01:25
Get out of my head!

Your head? A good portion of the country is thinking the exact same thing.

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 01:42
A probable case for next years term is Maryland's "assault weapon ban" / 10 round magazine limitation case. Without Scalia, things would go very badly. Then the flood gates would open.

Sanjac
14 Feb 16,, 02:18
Gloomy news, indeed. Darn.

DonBelt
14 Feb 16,, 02:26
The parties will use this to try to pull voters back to the "establishment" candidates.

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 02:32
One of those candidates clerked for the Supreme Court. He may have a leg up on picking quality Justices.'

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 02:48
So you want the Senate to neglect one of its most important jobs for a year? leave the Supreme Court with a year long vacancy? Just so Hillary can pick a new Justice?

Or in the Republican majority minds, to take a gamble and see if someone better comes along that we can agree with and get our way?

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 02:54
A year, no. Maybe eleven months?

citanon
14 Feb 16,, 02:56
So you want the Senate to neglect one of its most important jobs for a year? leave the Supreme Court with a year long vacancy? Just so Hillary can pick a new Justice?

Or in the Republican majority minds, to take a gamble and see if someone better comes along that we can agree with and get our way?

No, we want the Senate to do it's job for the year, and let the voters pick the new justice. :-P

bonehead
14 Feb 16,, 03:09
So you want the Senate to neglect one of its most important jobs for a year? leave the Supreme Court with a year long vacancy? Just so Hillary can pick a new Justice?

Or in the Republican majority minds, to take a gamble and see if someone better comes along that we can agree with and get our way?

On one hand, could Hillary pick someone further to the left than Obama? On the other hand her chances of ever getting to the White House diminishes smaller every day. The smart money goes to waiting until after the elections so the next president can put the court back in balance. Short answer, yes. It would be better to leave the spot vacant for a year than to steer the country towards a cliff and punch the accelerator.

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 03:10
No, we want the Senate to do it's job for the year, and let the voters pick the new justice. :-P

But the voters have done their job. In the last two elections the picked the person that they wanted to run the country. Part of that job is to pick people to fill the various vacancies that occur during his tenure.
The voters picked President Obama to do that job until Jan of next year.

Just saying.

bonehead
14 Feb 16,, 03:12
I just cant get "weekend at Bernie's" out of my head. All they had to do was keep the secret for a few months.

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 03:13
On one hand, could Hillary pick someone further to the left than Obama? On the other hand her chances of ever getting to the White House diminishes smaller every day. The smart money goes to waiting until after the elections so the next president can put the court back in balance. Short answer, yes. It would be better to leave the spot vacant for a year than to steer the country towards a cliff and punch the accelerator.

So much for fulfilling the Constitutional duties of the Senate. Guess we only want them to be strict Constitutionalist when it agrees with our viewpoint.

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 03:14
For those that keep up with such things. Who is on the short list to fill the opening?

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 03:23
Well the Senate can just 'Bork' any nominations as well. I'm just saying.

zraver
14 Feb 16,, 03:25
We will have a new justice in July, that will block any action by Obama on the current docket and give the GOP a pause in the news about obstructionism long enough for the public to move on to other issues before the general election.

If the GOP loses sight of the real prize (White House) and actually does try to block a new appointee till January, they will cost themselves the general election and 3 picks to SCOTUS. Right now the loss of Scalia is a temporary set back given the number of justices that will retire/die over the next 4 years- if the GOP wins the presidency. If I was a GOP strategist, I would play a long game to avoid the media led backlash and hope that HRC's email problems crush her either through an indictment of her person, or her top aides Huma and Sullivan who are both guilty as sin in violating federal laws regarding information security. I would also start taking digs at the Dems over super delegates and how undemocratic the Democrat elites really are and try and shift public opinion so that the Berners start demanding the DNC tell its super delegates to vote with the popular vote.

DonBelt
14 Feb 16,, 05:14
Good strategy, but the Clintons seem to have a teflon coating. I wouldn't bet the farm on Billary getting busted anytime soon if ever. The people who are running that investigation are probably waiting to see how the election is going and how it will impact them before they pull the trigger on any indictments. Maybe they just want to have a rock solid case, maybe not. And Hillary did recently say she would have no problem appointing Obama to the court. A man who as a supposed constitutional scholar bemoaned how the constitution gets in the way of progressive policies. Not an appointment I'd like to see no matter how many times he was elected. Also, the senate doesn't shirk their duties by not approving an appointment. They are under no constitutional obligation to rubber stamp all the president's choices. Quite the opposite if they feel the choice is bad for their constituents or the country. That's part of their responsibility as elected officials. It's also part of the checks and balances and tends to keep the court from swinging too far in either direction.

tbm3fan
14 Feb 16,, 05:20
Within two hours of Scalia's death being reported, presidential candidates along with Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill were feuding over whether Obama should appoint a replacement for the eloquent and outspoken Scalia or wait for the next administration to make a decision. The battle lines underscored the huge political stakes in the 2016 election, which could cement the ideological balance of the court for years to come.

What a joke by the Republicans. When, in history, has any US President postponed an appointment till the next administration when he had 10 1/2 months left in office? Ridiculous. Pretty soon someone will want one postponed when the President has two years left in office.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in January there is a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. How does McConnell want to bet?

Bigfella
14 Feb 16,, 05:47
What a joke by the Republicans. When, in history, has any US President postponed an appointment till the next administration when he had 10 1/2 months left in office? Ridiculous. Pretty soon someone will want one postponed when the President has two years left in office.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in January there is a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. How does McConnell want to bet?

I'm already enjoying so called 'strict Constitutionalists' screaming for the Senate to delay the decision so the people can vote. ;-)

Dazed
14 Feb 16,, 09:33
So much for fulfilling the Constitutional duties of the Senate. Guess we only want them to be strict Constitutionalist when it agrees with our viewpoint.

Gun Grape

Following, applying the law in a just and equitable fashion? Would that pragmatic ideologically free kind of thinking actually work? (Sarcasm) I agree 100%.

List of potential SCOUS nominees from politico.: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/antonin-scalia-replacement-219271

Bigfella
14 Feb 16,, 11:24
Obama picks a fairly centrist nominee & basically dares the GOP to stonewall for 11 months & give the Dems a high profile and ongoing way to rally the base & get out the vote. GOP Senators then have to make their calculations on how their own electorate will react if they confirm. Dice rolling time.

DOR
14 Feb 16,, 11:35
So you want the Senate to neglect one of its most important jobs for a year? leave the Supreme Court with a year long vacancy? Just so Hillary can pick a new Justice?

Or in the Republican majority minds, to take a gamble and see if someone better comes along that we can agree with and get our way?

Amen.

DOR
14 Feb 16,, 11:37
But the voters have done their job. In the last two elections the picked the person that they wanted to run the country. Part of that job is to pick people to fill the various vacancies that occur during his tenure.
The voters picked President Obama to do that job until Jan of next year.

Just saying.

Even better.

= = = = =

citanon,

The President of the United States nominates Supreme Court justices.
Justices are not elected positions.

GVChamp
14 Feb 16,, 15:15
Denying a liberal moron a chance to appoint another liberal moron is not abdicating Constitutional Authority. That is, in fact, how the Constitution is supposed to work. That's why the justice needs to be CONFIRMED and the President cannot just appoint justices.

"Checks and Balances"

I should elaborate and say that Congress has the Constitutional Right to block a Supreme Court Justice nominee for any damn reason it pleases. The Check and Balance on THAT is the Election Process. I see the process working as intended.

Tactically, the Republicans should just go ahead and confirm a relatively centrist person and go strong for the next 2-3 appointees by actual winning a damned election.



EDIT: Funny suggestion. Obama should appoint Ted Cruz. That would sail through the Senate, and then Trump wins the nomination, and Hillary would probably win the general and appoint the next 2-3 Justices.

astralis
14 Feb 16,, 16:39
on a lighter yet darker note, is it just me or does this whole thing feel really Game of Throne-ish, more so than the Presidency?

GVChamp
14 Feb 16,, 17:23
on a lighter yet darker note, is it just me or does this whole thing feel really Game of Throne-ish, more so than the Presidency?

Dear Donald Trump,

Let's bury the hatchet. My daughter is getting married next Sunday.

Regards,
Jeb!

bonehead
14 Feb 16,, 18:18
So much for fulfilling the Constitutional duties of the Senate. Guess we only want them to be strict Constitutionalist when it agrees with our viewpoint.

So in your mind the people have spoken in the presidential election but the people in the senate are held to a different standard. Now please do explain how throwing away the checks and balances of the Constitution, and blindly allowing Obama to stack the Court with a horrible judge, is being a strict Constitutionalist. We both know that Obama is going to the far left for his nominations and he is going to use those nominations as a club to beat the senate with. This very well may be Obama;s last grasp of a legacy and he is not going to let this opportunity pass.

Red Team
14 Feb 16,, 19:25
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.” --Senator McConnell (States News Service, May 19, 2005) Link (http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/05/18/selected-statements-from-republican-senators-on-the-constitutionality-of-filibustering-nominees-and-the-deference-owed-to-the-presidents-nominees/#.VsDFePIrKhc)

Looks to me like it's just another case of a political party sticking up for Constitutional values only when it suits their purpose. Scalia would be turning in his grave.

Parihaka
14 Feb 16,, 19:43
I don't know what you're all worried about. There's only one person Obama will nominate and that's himself, and he'll delay it til the day before he's required to step down.

antimony
14 Feb 16,, 20:20
Your head? A good portion of the country is thinking the exact same thing.

A better part of the country is feeling otherwise

tbm3fan
14 Feb 16,, 20:33
So in your mind the people have spoken in the presidential election but the people in the senate are held to a different standard. Now please do explain how throwing away the checks and balances of the Constitution, and blindly allowing Obama to stack the Court with a horrible judge, is being a strict Constitutionalist. We both know that Obama is going to the far left for his nominations and he is going to use those nominations as a club to beat the senate with. This very well may be Obama;s last grasp of a legacy and he is not going to let this opportunity pass.

Besides being over the top I do believe that you misread GG

tbm3fan
14 Feb 16,, 20:48
Interesting story about Scalia


(CNN)When the shocking news of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing hit Saturday night, my mind raced back to a White House Correspondents Association dinner seven years ago, when we were seated together.

We bantered about my hometown of Chicago, where he had taught law before ascending to the bench. He opined on wine and music and generally lived up to his reputation as a man who told and enjoyed a good story.

And then our conversation took an unexpected turn.

Justice David Souter, Scalia's longtime colleague on the court, had just announced his retirement, creating a vacancy for President Obama to fill. Scalia figured that as senior adviser to the new president, I might have some influence on the decision -- or at least enough to pass along a message.

"I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."

A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again.

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

I was surprised that a member of the court would so bluntly propose a nominee, and intrigued that it was Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean who was appointed solicitor general by Obama to represent the government before the Supreme Court. Though she had worked on policy in the Clinton administration and had a reputation for pragmatism, Kagan plainly would be a liberal in the context of the court.

Later, I learned that Scalia and Kagan were friends, though I suspect she would have been as surprised as I was at the brazenness of Scalia's suggestion.

Each was a graduate of Harvard Law School and had taught at the University of Chicago Law School, though in different eras. They were of different generations, he the son of an Italian immigrant, she a Jew from New York City's left-leaning West Side. But they shared an intellectual rigor and a robust sense of humor. And if Scalia could not have a philosophical ally in the next court appointee, he had hoped, at least, for one with the heft to give him a good, honest fight.

Kagan didn't get that nomination. The President instead chose Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court.

But when another vacancy arose a year later with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama did nominate Kagan, whose friendship with Scalia would grow in the years to come, even as they differed, sometimes sharply, on issues before them.

During her confirmation meetings with senators, Kagan had vowed to go hunting to allay their concerns about her cultural awareness on the issue of guns. When she joined the court, she asked her friend, Scalia, to take her. The two, who occasionally shot intellectual darts at each other on paper, became regular, if unlikely, hunting partners.

The Supreme Court is a singular institution in our system: lifetime appointees, powerful in their impact but uniquely opaque in their process of arriving at decisions.

We have become inured to the animus that characterizes the relationship between many of our elected officials in these highly partisan times. But members of the court, free from the pressures of running for office, relate to each other in a different way.

So much so that a conservative lion would lobby the President's adviser for his liberal friend. Thank you, Justice Scalia, for your service to our country.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 21:17
So in your mind the people have spoken in the presidential election but the people in the senate are held to a different standard. Now please do explain how throwing away the checks and balances of the Constitution, and blindly allowing Obama to stack the Court with a horrible judge, is being a strict Constitutionalist. We both know that Obama is going to the far left for his nominations and he is going to use those nominations as a club to beat the senate with. This very well may be Obama;s last grasp of a legacy and he is not going to let this opportunity pass.

How am I holding the Senate to a different standard? Those Senators were also elected to do their job all the way to the day they leave office.

The whole Senate is not up for reelection. Only 1/3 of them. Confirmation only requires a simple majority. If that 1/3 of the Senate doesn't want to do their duty/abdicate their responsibility because they are conducting a reelection campaign, so be it. There is still enough Senators to make a majority.

zraver
14 Feb 16,, 21:55
What a joke by the Republicans. When, in history, has any US President postponed an appointment till the next administration when he had 10 1/2 months left in office? Ridiculous. Pretty soon someone will want one postponed when the President has two years left in office.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in January there is a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. How does McConnell want to bet?

Bork was held up for 7 months and the Thurmond Rule(Tradition) had held for 50 years so far, that in an election year SCOTUS appointments are put on hold. Not that Obama and Reid care about rules and traditions. McConnell might decide to just down vote everyone Obama puts up. Hell, knowing that he has a political fight on his hands and with Obama's fondness for work around, he may just appoint someone in the next few days. The Senate is in recess until Feb 26th so it would be constitutional. He could appoint the most liberal lefty in the country and the Senate couldn't stop him. This would give him 5-4 on any legacy issues coming up this spring.

citanon
14 Feb 16,, 22:46
Bork was held up for 7 months and the Thurmond Rule(Tradition) had held for 50 years so far, that in an election year SCOTUS appointments are put on hold. Not that Obama and Reid care about rules and traditions. McConnell might decide to just down vote everyone Obama puts up. Hell, knowing that he has a political fight on his hands and with Obama's fondness for work around, he may just appoint someone in the next few days. The Senate is in recess until Feb 26th so it would be constitutional. He could appoint the most liberal lefty in the country and the Senate couldn't stop him. This would give him 5-4 on any legacy issues coming up this spring.

Can the Senate be called back for emergency session?

zraver
14 Feb 16,, 23:49
Yes, by the president lol.

surfgun
14 Feb 16,, 23:51
I wouldn't be surprised if they are called back on Tuesday. What will keep the majority from just showing up and anouncing they are open for business?

Gun Grape
14 Feb 16,, 23:59
Bork was held up for 7 months and the Thurmond Rule(Tradition) had held for 50 years so far, that in an election year SCOTUS appointments are put on hold.

Except for that darn liberal Reagan. Had Justice Kennedy confirmed during his "Lame Duck" last year as president. Wouldn't follow the "Tradition" of letting the next President choose.

Guess it must not be "Breaking tradition" when a Republican does it. Kennedy was confirmed in Feb 88, Nominated in Nov 87. President Hoover also nominated and got approval of a Supreme Court Justice in his last year.

Except for the "R" after their names, what is the difference in them doing it and the current President?

surfgun
15 Feb 16,, 00:00
1987 was not an election year GG.

I don't recall what month was the vacancy announced?

Gun Grape
15 Feb 16,, 00:14
1987 was not an election year GG.

I don't recall what month was the vacancy announced?

Confirmed in a election year. Was nominated Nov 30th 1987. 31 days before the election year. Sen Mich McConnel voted for confirmation.

Here is a list of election year Supreme Court appointments from the 20th century


The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Lamar Rucker, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clark was confirmed unanimously ten days later. ,July 24th 1916

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

surfgun
15 Feb 16,, 00:28
Sorry GG, you did not answer the question of when the anouncement of the vacancy was, do you have that information or are you avoiding the question?

zraver
15 Feb 16,, 01:01
Except for that darn liberal Reagan. Had Justice Kennedy confirmed during his "Lame Duck" last year as president. Wouldn't follow the "Tradition" of letting the next President choose.

Guess it must not be "Breaking tradition" when a Republican does it. Kennedy was confirmed in Feb 88, Nominated in Nov 87. President Hoover also nominated and got approval of a Supreme Court Justice in his last year.

Except for the "R" after their names, what is the difference in them doing it and the current President?

Kennedy was not nominated during an election year. The date of the confirmation is up to the senate and is not in the presidents control. Kennedy was also nominated after the Dems held up Robert Bork for months. RR's first attempt to nominate someone to fill the seat occured on July 1, 1987.

Gun Grape
15 Feb 16,, 01:38
Sorry GG, you did not answer the question of when the anouncement of the vacancy was, do you have that information or are you avoiding the question?

Wow aren't we getting snippy. Didn't know it was a question directed at me. Figured you would have googled it. But since you didn't

Kennedy was the third choice for a replacement for Lewis Powell. Powell resigned June 26th 1987. He came after Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Regardless, His nomination was on Nov 30, well into the election season, and his appointment was during the election year.

Zad Fnark
16 Feb 16,, 13:12
Considering that Obama was in on the attempt to filibuster the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito, I find this highly ironic.

DOR
17 Feb 16,, 10:52
Considering the "strict constitutionalist" sound bites coming out of GOPers' mouths these days, it is even more ironic -- no, just sad -- that they want to deny the president his constitutional right to name a nominee, and then deny the Senate their constitutional duty to advise and consent to said nomination.

I should also note that Sen. John Kerry's January 2006 filibuster attempt did not significantly delay Mr Alito's inauguration.

Zad Fnark
17 Feb 16,, 13:07
He can name anyone he wants. Congress is not the President's rubber stamp. They can reject every loser he sends down the pipe.

For all your whining about the GOP and "Constitutionalism", I guess you can admit the dems don't give two sh*ts about the Constitution. They've done everything to trash it going back to FDR.

DOR
17 Feb 16,, 15:56
He can name anyone he wants. Congress is not the President's rubber stamp. They can reject every loser he sends down the pipe.

For all your whining about the GOP and "Constitutionalism", I guess you can admit the dems don't give two sh*ts about the Constitution. They've done everything to trash it going back to FDR.

I get the impression (please, do correct me if I'm wrong) you don't like Democrats.
Fine.

But, throwing out "dems don't give two sh*ts about the Constitution" isn't accurate, and adds nothing to the discourse.

Zad Fnark
17 Feb 16,, 16:22
Ahem...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=20160214_TWS-blog-constituion-not-require-senate-vote-5_facebook.com&utm_content=TWS

As to the discourse, the dems' contempt for the 2nd amendment is obvious. That goes back to the day when the terrorist wing of the Democratic party (the KKK) was pushing the idea that the 2nd amendment was a government right in order to disarm the freed slaves.

surfgun
17 Feb 16,, 20:49
It was the Dems that initiated this updated process years ago. Turn about is fair play. They changed the rules and whine when they are no longer convenient to them. So to the rule breakers, that changed rules in the first place. How does it taste?
To those that citicize Republicans, that they are not living up to their ideals, how many times are they expected to get BF'd and not say enough?

tbm3fan
18 Feb 16,, 06:53
I'll criticize the Republicans for not doing their job as the Democrats don't represent my opinion. I, and I alone, represent my opinion.

Triple C
18 Feb 16,, 10:55
Typical hyperbole from both sides. The authority of the US president to nominate supreme court judges at any point of the presidency is clear as day, and so is the Senate's right not to confirm said nominees. The problem with categorically rejecting any and all nominees is that this effectively nullifies the supreme court when there occurs a 4-4 split, which hurt conservative and democratic legal causes in a randomized fashion.

Bigfella
18 Feb 16,, 14:55
Typical hyperbole from both sides. The authority of the US president to nominate supreme court judges at any point of the presidency is clear as day, and so is the Senate's right not to confirm said nominees. The problem with categorically rejecting any and all nominees is that this effectively nullifies the supreme court when there occurs a 4-4 split, which hurt conservative and democratic legal causes in a randomized fashion.

Deciding that you will reject any nominee sight unseen and 11 months out from a new President taking over is pretty poor form, however.

astralis
18 Feb 16,, 15:46
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/norm_ornstein_on_the_fight_over_scalia_s_scotus_re placement.html

Parihaka
18 Feb 16,, 21:44
As we all know, (http://obamaspeeches.com/046-Confirmation-of-Judge-Samuel-Alito-Jr-Obama-Speech.htm) there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I’m deeply troubled.

I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He’s an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there’s no indication he’s not a man of great character.

But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.
Current President Obama, former Senior Lecturer Chicago Law School, Former Senator.

astralis
18 Feb 16,, 22:05
something which he now regrets...:-)

in any case, IMHO McConnell rather foolishly pandered to his right here; it would have been easy to at least make a show of considering the President's choice, while holding it up interminably via filibuster, etc.

my prediction is that the Republicans will continue to hold the line on this until it becomes clear that Clinton is going to take the Presidency; then they'll probably try to cut a deal where they take a moderate nominee from Obama instead of risking a scenario where Hillary is President and there's a Democratic Senate.

Red Team
19 Feb 16,, 17:44
Someone please kill the synth

tbm3fan
19 Feb 16,, 18:46
Can mods delete a particular post?

astralis
19 Feb 16,, 22:05
Red Team,


Someone please kill the synth

only if we re-name the moderators as coursers, and the WAB will thereby be known as The Institute...

Parihaka
19 Feb 16,, 22:30
Can mods delete a particular post?Yup

edit to add: we very seldom do so, only if it's spam or at the posters direct request and for good reason (opsec etc)

Red Team
19 Feb 16,, 23:16
Red Team,



only if we re-name the moderators as coursers, and the WAB will thereby be known as The Institute...

I quite like this idea, though I'm a Brotherhood of Steel man myself.

DOR
16 Mar 16,, 18:19
President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, DC Appeals chief judge, to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.

Judge Garland's first visit to the White House came at the age of 17, when he was one of 119 Presidential Scholars invited to the White House for an address by President Nixon (4 June 1970, exactly one month after Kent State). He was also a National Merit Scholar, attended Harvard on a scholarship and graduated summa cum laude in social studies.

He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1977, magna cum laude, and was a member of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation he served as clerk to Second Appeals Court Judge Henry Friendly and Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.

In the Clinton Administration, he served as deputy assistant attorney general and was involved in prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing, Atlanta Olympics bombings and that of Ted Kaczynski (UNABOM).

President Clinton nominated him to the DC Circuit Court in 1995, and despite receiving no criticism, the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee refused to vote on his nomination (Sen Chuck Grassley thought it was too expensive to add another position). He was renominated in 1997, and 19 months after his original nomination was confirmed 76-23. All 23 of the (GOP) 'no' votes were over the cost of the appointment.

When Justice John Paul Stevens retired in 2010, Utah Sen Orrin Hatch urged President Obama to nominate Judge Garland; the president nominated Judge Elena Kagan, instead.

Judge Garland is considered a centrist moderate “with a pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases” (as per Carrie Johnson of NPR).

astralis
16 Mar 16,, 19:23
all of which puts Republicans into a terrible conundrum, do we accept someone whom is so blatantly...acceptable...or do we take our chances with an election, with the likely outcome that you'll get a President Clinton with the increasing probability of a Democratic Senate?

if they don't like Garland they'll certainly hate Sri Srinivasan.

Dazed
16 Mar 16,, 21:31
Diversity another Harvard Law School Graduate to dilute the number of Yale Law School graduates.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-supreme-court-diversity-ivy-league-20141028-story.html

DOR
17 Mar 16,, 11:52
Here's the way to understand the Republican Party today.

On the one hand, they are struggling to accept Donald Trump as the finest representative of their cherished partisan and national values.

On the other hand, they are struggling to reject Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he is the President's choice.

.

Expect heads to explode when these two thoughts finally collide.

Bigfella
17 Mar 16,, 13:03
Obama playing it very smart and the GOP very dumb. There will be a concerted campaign to paint Mr Garland as some sort of 'fellow traveller', but the fact Orrin Hatch spoke of him favourably recently will undercut that campaign outside hard core partisans. If they let him through the base throws a tantrum and Obama looks 'Presidential' for putting up a sensible candidate. if they block him they offer the clearest possible example of what they have been reduced to while risking Hilary appointing a much younger, much more liberal justice. The first of several I suspect.

As a mate of mine points out, life is so much harder for dumb people. The GOP leadership & base has become so obsessed with the caricature of Obama they have created in their own heads they have given him a nice little 'win/win' for his last year in office. Stupid is as stupid does.

astralis
20 Mar 16,, 23:58
lol, "hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland". come jan 2017, odds are that a new President Clinton will be making him eat his words.

http://time.com/4265434/mitch-mcconnell-merrick-garland-supreme-court/

Senate Majority Leader Rules Out ‘Lame Duck’ Supreme Court Confirmation
Shawna Thomas / NBC News 11:23 AM ET

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Sunday tried to shut down Beltway musings that President Obama’s latest pick for the Supreme Court could still find a way to be confirmed in the lame duck session if Hillary Clinton wins the election.

When asked whether he would completely rule out a “lame duck scenario” for Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, McConnell told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We’re not going to be confirming a judge to the Supreme Court under this president.”

When pushed on the possibility that someone more liberal than Garland could be nominated in 2017 if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, McConnell responded, “It’d be hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland, but it’s my hope that she will not be making the appointment.”

Cactus
21 Mar 16,, 01:06
all of which puts Republicans into a terrible conundrum, do we accept someone whom is so blatantly...acceptable...or do we take our chances with an election, with the likely outcome that you'll get a President Clinton with the increasing probability of a Democratic Senate? if they don't like Garland they'll certainly hate Sri Srinivasan.

Huh? Srinivasan is more a loose-canon than a centrist; he has worked at both the extreme ends of the spectrum, and done well. If he had been nominated, then it would be as a canary to sniff out how the Republicans react. The fact that the White House nominated Garland indicates that Obama is serious. It will be interesting to see how this plays out...

tbm3fan
21 Mar 16,, 03:37
lol, "hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland". come jan 2017, odds are that a new President Clinton will be making him eat his words.

http://time.com/4265434/mitch-mcconnell-merrick-garland-supreme-court/

Senate Majority Leader Rules Out ‘Lame Duck’ Supreme Court Confirmation
Shawna Thomas / NBC News 11:23 AM ET

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Sunday tried to shut down Beltway musings that President Obama’s latest pick for the Supreme Court could still find a way to be confirmed in the lame duck session if Hillary Clinton wins the election.

When asked whether he would completely rule out a “lame duck scenario” for Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, McConnell told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We’re not going to be confirming a judge to the Supreme Court under this president.”

When pushed on the possibility that someone more liberal than Garland could be nominated in 2017 if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, McConnell responded, “It’d be hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland, but it’s my hope that she will not be making the appointment.”

There are those who like to think that Harry Reid is a jackass. Well, with that comment by McConnell I believe we have a new king of the hill. At least he was honest this time when he said it was personal, "this president"

Stitch
21 Mar 16,, 06:26
As a mate of mine points out, life is so much harder for dumb people. The GOP leadership & base has become so obsessed with the caricature of Obama they have created in their own heads they have given him a nice little 'win/win' for his last year in office. Stupid is as stupid does.

I just wish the Republicans would come to their senses, and realize this. But they won't.

They've spent so much time & effort vilifying Obama, that they've dug themselves a hole that will take a LONG time to get out of.

tbm3fan
21 Mar 16,, 07:53
Things could be really ironic if not only does Clinton become President but they also lose the Senate.

Bigfella
21 Mar 16,, 09:54
I just wish the Republicans would come to their senses, and realize this. But they won't.

They've spent so much time & effort vilifying Obama, that they've dug themselves a hole that will take a LONG time to get out of.

The problem is that on one level it has worked well. They control most of the governments in the country & the legislative branch Federally. The GOP has both ridden & encouraged this wave of anger as well as the increasingly closed loop that is producing it. Now it appears that the anger is being focussed on the party itself. Interesting times indeed.

Given the ages of Ginsburg, Breyer & Kennedy, these fools may just give Hilary the chance to nominate 4 justices, two of them either Conservative or 'swing'. They are being offered a good deal & they have created a situation where they can't take it. Idjuts.