CSNbbs

Full Version: Justice Scalia dies
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Wow, this is huge, huge news. I can't imagine we'll be in for a very easy confirmation on whomever Obama nominates.

I've said for years that the one thing Obama hasn't done in 7 years is change the make-up of the Supreme Court, but that won't be the case now.

RIP Justice Scalia.
(02-13-2016 06:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is huge, huge news. I can't imagine we'll be in for a very easy confirmation on whomever Obama nominates.

I've said for years that the one thing Obama hasn't done in 7 years is change the make-up of the Supreme Court, but that won't be the case now.

RIP Justice Scalia.

From political science point of view, this is going to be one crazy year. It will be interesting to see what Obama does. Are there any liberal northeastern Republicans left? He could appoint one of them and put the Rs in the Senate on the spot blocking one of their own.

What's Jack Danforth up to these days?
I heard both Rubio and Cruz say tonight that no SC justice have been confirmed in a presidential election year in 80 years. That's not entirely true. Kennedy was confirmed in Feb., 1988 (Reagan's last year) but that was a slightly different situation since Reagan had first nominated Bork in the summer of 1987, and then after that was blocked, he nominated Kennedy in November, 1987 (and he was confirmed in February). People also mention the Thurmond rule (where they blocked the nomination of Abe Fortas to be the Chief Justice while LBJ was a lame duck president. I also wonder if that's a bit different since Fortas was already on the Supreme Court.

It is clear the Republicans want Obama to not nominate anyone. But it's also clear he will ignore them and nominate someone. The interesting thing is what happens if he does nominate a centrist of some type. Then what?
The Republicans seem to be assuming they'll have the White House and the Senate after the election.
What should happen is that McConnell, Obama, and Reid should sit down together and figure out someone who is close enough to the center that he/she can be pushed through, and then do it.

Between the three of them, there's not enough integrity or statesmanship to make that happen. There's not enough of either attribute for one person, let alone three.
(02-14-2016 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What should happen is that McConnell, Obama, and Reid should sit down together and figure out someone who is close enough to the center that he/she can be pushed through, and then do it.

Between the three of them, there's not enough integrity or statesmanship to make that happen. There's not enough of either attribute for one person, let alone three.

Why do you include Reid in that discussion? It would seem Obama and McConnell hold all the cards.
(02-14-2016 01:20 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]The Republicans seem to be assuming they'll have the White House and the Senate after the election.

Why not? They certainly don't have both now.
(02-14-2016 03:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What should happen is that McConnell, Obama, and Reid should sit down together and figure out someone who is close enough to the center that he/she can be pushed through, and then do it.
Between the three of them, there's not enough integrity or statesmanship to make that happen. There's not enough of either attribute for one person, let alone three.
Why do you include Reid in that discussion? It would seem Obama and McConnell hold all the cards.

Because somebody would have to whip at least a few D's in line to make it happen. And because you might as well do all you can to give the appearance of bipartisanship. I would also have included the speaker and house majority and minority leaders, except the house doesn't get to vote on this.

I realize that anything even remotely approaching the appearance of common sense and working together that this would represent would at this point probably shock the American so thoroughly people that who knows what might result.
(02-14-2016 03:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 01:20 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]The Republicans seem to be assuming they'll have the White House and the Senate after the election.

Why not? They certainly don't have both now.

Its a trade off. If there is a centrist candidate on the docket, then it might be the safer option to try to push that through.

From a Republican establishment, that might be the best option. The flip side is dealing with a chance that someone like Sanders or Cruz get in the White House.
While I didn't agree with Scalia on several issues, his knowledge and writing skills were matched by none. He was a consistent in his beliefs and interpretation of the constitution as well. A big loss for the Supreme Court, no matter what side of the aisle one is on.

He will be missed. Ginsburg and Scalia were great friends; from a time when people on opposite sides of everything were still willing to be around each other. Her tribute/statement was very classy and well said as well.
(02-14-2016 08:46 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]While I didn't agree with Scalia on several issues, his knowledge and writing skills were matched by none. He was a consistent in his beliefs and interpretation of the constitution as well. A big loss for the Supreme Court, no matter what side of the aisle one is on.

He will be missed. Ginsburg and Scalia were great friends; from a time when people on opposite sides of everything were still willing to be around each other. Her tribute/statement was very classy and well said as well.

Scalia had his virtues, but consistency was not one of them.
(02-14-2016 04:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 03:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What should happen is that McConnell, Obama, and Reid should sit down together and figure out someone who is close enough to the center that he/she can be pushed through, and then do it.
Between the three of them, there's not enough integrity or statesmanship to make that happen. There's not enough of either attribute for one person, let alone three.
Why do you include Reid in that discussion? It would seem Obama and McConnell hold all the cards.

Because somebody would have to whip at least a few D's in line to make it happen. And because you might as well do all you can to give the appearance of bipartisanship. I would also have included the speaker and house majority and minority leaders, except the house doesn't get to vote on this.

I realize that anything even remotely approaching the appearance of common sense and working together that this would represent would at this point probably shock the American so thoroughly people that who knows what might result.

You don't think if O and McC agreed on an individual, O couldn't convince a few Ds to go along? Or does he not have any allies in Congress?
(02-14-2016 09:31 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 04:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 03:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What should happen is that McConnell, Obama, and Reid should sit down together and figure out someone who is close enough to the center that he/she can be pushed through, and then do it.
Between the three of them, there's not enough integrity or statesmanship to make that happen. There's not enough of either attribute for one person, let alone three.
Why do you include Reid in that discussion? It would seem Obama and McConnell hold all the cards.
Because somebody would have to whip at least a few D's in line to make it happen. And because you might as well do all you can to give the appearance of bipartisanship. I would also have included the speaker and house majority and minority leaders, except the house doesn't get to vote on this.
I realize that anything even remotely approaching the appearance of common sense and working together that this would represent would at this point probably shock the American so thoroughly people that who knows what might result.
You don't think if O and McC agreed on an individual, O couldn't convince a few Ds to go along? Or does he not have any allies in Congress?

I really don't know. I do think it would look better if Harry got invited to the party. I doubt that there's anyone for whom McConnell could deliver 100% of republicans, so having Harry on the team would help.
(02-14-2016 08:53 PM)JOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2016 08:46 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]While I didn't agree with Scalia on several issues, his knowledge and writing skills were matched by none. He was a consistent in his beliefs and interpretation of the constitution as well. A big loss for the Supreme Court, no matter what side of the aisle one is on.

He will be missed. Ginsburg and Scalia were great friends; from a time when people on opposite sides of everything were still willing to be around each other. Her tribute/statement was very classy and well said as well.

Scalia had his virtues, but consistency was not one of them.

I agree that Justice Scalia was not as consistent as his popular reputation would have it.

But then I got to thinking: is ANY Supreme Court Justice really all that consistent?

In my adult life the one who probably had the most pronounced reputation for ideological consistency was William Brennan. And when I recall vaguely his opinions in better-known cases, the reputation seems deserved. But I wonder: if I really sat down and read through them, would I find apparent deviations similar to Scalia's? My hunch is that I'd find a little bit less variance in Brennan's opinions, but it's not much more than a hunch.

There are a few factors that militate against complete consistency in opinion writing. By definition, the questions that get to the Court are hard cases, and the advocates on either side are just about the best in the land. The Justices' own law clerks change every year. And the Court, like any organization, has its own social dynamics, where for the sake of working relationships, particular Justices may want to meander on occasion from their own straight-and-narrow path.
To the point about nominating a moderate - actually looks like there's a good chance Obama will nominate Sri Srinivasan, who is generally considered a moderate. Will be interesting to see how the Senate Republicans react to that.

I'd be lying if I didn't admit to getting a kick out self-proclaimed strict constructionists inventing some rule about SC nominations in election years. Ayotte's implication that Obama nominating someone is an "unconstitutional power grab" takes the cake.
The real risk is that the Repubs are probably likely to lose the Senate control in the upcoming election and Obissmal knows it. If they were safely in control he'd be more likely to back down, or at least be a bit more fair.

Either way, one or two others will step down/pass away soon, so that might mitigate the effect of this nominee for either side. Kennedy was a Reagan nominee, and he turned out to swing the court much more left than anyone thought. Would be funny if Obissmal did the same thing in this circumstance, though I think he'd directly vet them with his leftdar before.

The Repubs are definitely backed into the corner on this. Shame Scalia couldn't have eaten less pasta and lasted through the year.
I'd say it's likely the Republicans will still control the Senate after the 2016 elections. They may lose a seat or two, but they have enough of a majority right now so that they'll still be in charge.

We're not going to get a moderate candidate because it's not in Obama's nature to nominate one. From a strict constructionist point of view, the Senate doesn't have to do anything with a nominee, so if and when Obama nominates a liberal, it's within the Senate's Constitutional right to do nothing at all with the nomination should it so choose.
Republicans amaze me with their uncanny knack of picking the worst possible fights. This is one that they can't win. If he had any sense, instead of showing his a**, McConnell would have met quietly with Obama and said, hey, if we can agree on a moderate, I can get him through the senate.

Of course, McConnell couldn't lead a bunch of ducks to water.
Biden said today that he thought Obama would nominate someone who has received Republican support in the past. That would seem to indicate someone like Srinivasan and not someone like Lynch (who had a few Republican vote for her but not a ton). But I guess we'll see. Harry Reid said he thought we'd get a name within 3 weeks (personally I think it will happen before Super Tuesday).
Peter Wallison at the American Enterprise Institute thinks the reason McConnell is taking this position is to keep Republican control of the Senate. There are at least 5 at risk Senate seats in this election and Wallison speculates that McConnell doesn't want any of them getting burned by their vote for an Obama appointee.

Quote:...being called an obstructionist because your Senate leader would not allow a vote is far preferable to voting for or against an actual person.

Interesting theory.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's