Jump to content

The next Supreme Court justice...


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Didn't want to muddle the other thread with the politics of this, but apparently both sides aren't waiting to talk about the political fallout.  Specifically, Senate Republicans are already saying that Obama shouldn't name a replacement and are saying they will block any nominee until the next president takes office (11 months from now).  Here's the comments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5

I don't know that this is a sustainable position heading into a presidential election.  First, there are a lot of vulnerable GOP incumbents seeking reelection in blue/swing states.  They're going to be pressured to not be seen as putting conservative ideology ahead of governing.  Republicans probably won't have public backing for delaying/blocking a nominee, so that could hurt their presidential and Senate elections.

Also, I wonder if this doesn't hurt Trump in the primary.  His biggest weakness involves questions about his devotion to the pro-life position  and other questions about his conservative credentials.  The knock on him now will be...can he be trusted to appoint conservative justices to the bench?  This nomination fight is going to highlight those concerns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is some talk that this is the person that Obama might nominate.  Also a smart move given that he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate just a few years ago:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

In March 2010, National Review blogger Ed Whelan wrote that the Obama administration had been considering nominating Srinivasan to one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and that the idea of nominating Srinivasan had run into some opposition from some Obama supporters because of Srinivasan's work in the U.S. Solicitor General's office during the Bush administration and because of union animosity to Srinivasan's corporate clients in private practice.[11]

On June 11, 2012, Obama nominated Srinivasan to the seat on the D.C. Circuit.[12] On January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate.

On January 3, 2013, he was renominated to the same office.[13]

His Senate confirmation hearing on April 10, 2013, was uneventful.[14] His nomination was reported to the floor of the Senate on May 16, 2013, by a unanimous vote of 18 ayes to 0 nays. A final vote on his nomination took place on May 23, 2013, where he was confirmed 97-0.[15][16][17] He received his commission on May 24, 2013. He received the oath of office from Chief Judge Merrick Garland on June 18, 2013.[18]

In April 2013, Mother Jones suggested that Srinivasan ultimately might be nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court of the United States;[19] during the same month, Jeffrey Toobin also speculated that should he be confirmed for the D.C. Circuit, he would be President Obama's next nominee to the Supreme Court.[20]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I'm bothered by the Republican stance on this. They are suggesting (more like demanding) that potus wait to nominate until after the new president is sworn in. Seems a bit unconstitutional if you ask me...

It's not unconstitutional, but it is hypocritical.  Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate in 1988. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

It's not unconstitutional, but it is hypocritical.  Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate in 1988. 

I wish I wasn't like 5 when that happened.  Kennedy is the fulcrum on the Supreme Court See Saw.  Was he seen as a middle of the road guy in 88?  Or would the conservatives running the executive branch at the time be shocked?

 

I always wondered that, maybe someone older can answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, lostone said:

So what happens to rulings now since there are 8?  I could have sworn there was some Vice President opportunity here, but I could be severely misremembering.

A split court decision is simply non-precedent, as I understand it.  In other words, if they hear a case and it splits evenly, there is no precedent and no actual ruling.  What will probably happen is that the backdoor negotiation process that occurs on these things will simply adjust the rulings in a way that one side will pick up an extra vote.  If they're ruling on some regulation and the initial vote is 4-4, one side will adjust their stance on the regulation in a subtle way that will appeal to one of the justices and the ruling will end up 5-3.  That's going to be hard for controversial decisions, but easier on ones that don't have huge impact on caselaw.

But I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure.  I do know that the vice president doesn't play a role whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I'm bothered by the Republican stance on this. They are suggesting (more like demanding) that potus wait to nominate until after the new president is sworn in. Seems a bit unconstitutional if you ask me...

 

Is it any real surprise??

 

8 years in and they still want to keep the president form doing anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

And Mitch McConnell and Grassley both voted to confirm. But he was nominated in November, so it's completely different. :rolleyes:

I'm serious, I haven't seen a single rationale for delaying the nomination that isn't essentially, "we don't like Obama".  That's a pretty weak basis for doing something that is relatively unprecedented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I'm serious, I haven't seen a single rationale for delaying the nomination that isn't essentially, "we don't like Obama".  That's a pretty weak basis for doing something that is relatively unprecedented.

The reason I didn't post in the other thread about this topic is because this thread was first. And I see no problem with Obama nominating someone now because he still has a year in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I believe the supreme court as legislative as it had been  is fairly balanced right now on the views of the general public but would become imbalanced if Obamas nominee was selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Worzone said:

Because I believe the supreme court as legislative as it had been  is fairly balanced right now on the views of the general public but would become imbalanced if Obamas nominee was selected.

Well then the Republicans need to win more elections. Your response would be like  Carolina panther fans saying they dont want to play the super bowl until after denver has to let go of some of their defensive free agents because they are too good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Because I believe the supreme court as legislative as it had been  is fairly balanced right now on the views of the general public but would become imbalanced if Obamas nominee was selected.

And if the incumbent were Republican and Ginsburg had passed that's what the right would be hollering right now? 

 

Don't answer, b/c you already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...