Jump to content

The next Supreme Court justice...


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, cnasty said:

Are we really entertaining the idea that there will ever be anybody like Scalia? As much as I truly disliked the guy, his prose was unrivaled and the way he got to some of his conclusions, seemingly  illogical at times, somehow always managed to fit into his narratives (kinda). 

Nonetheless, RIP to a man that will not soon be forgotten by any legal scholar. 

For better or worse, there will never be another Scalia. 

Not at all.  I'm simply suggesting that is what is at play. They want to see if the election turns their way and maybe they can get a Republican President to replace him.  I don't think they'll be successful in that, not least of all because I'm not as confident as they appear to be that they're going to win the election.  But the point is it's ideology that is driving their objection.  Nobody reasonably believes that no president can ever nominate a SC justice in an election year.  Nobody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Everybody knows presidents do nominate SC justices in their last year in office.  The political play is transparent.  So let's talk about what they're actually doing instead of pretending they'd have an issue if we were talking about replacing Breyer instead of Scalia. 

If Republicans are successful at delaying a replacement until next year, you don't think Democrats are going to pull this exact same thing in the future?  And Democrats at that point will have a rock solid argument...this was the precedent set by Republicans.  The actual consequence of the action (that you seem to support) will be a precedent that blocks any SC nominations during election years.  

The transparency of their political play doesn't matter if they succeed at it and set a template for future Senate actions when there's divided government.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

If Republicans are successful at delaying a replacement until next year, you don't think Democrats are going to pull this exact same thing in the future?  And Democrats at that point will have a rock solid argument...this was the precedent set by Republicans.  The actual consequence of the action (that you seem to support) will be a precedent that blocks any SC nominations during election years.  

The transparency of their political play doesn't matter if they succeed at it and set a template for future Senate actions when there's divided government.  

Can we say the same thing about the way democrats passed Obamacare? Yes? Good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Can we say the same thing about the way democrats passed Obamacare? Yes? Good. 

No we can't.

Republicans were part of the conversation with the ACA....there were 100 ideas of Republican nature in the bill...yet they still refused to vote for it....in fact one of them even said he would not vote for it even if he got everything he wanted....... It is the same guy who is now saying there should not even be a hearing REGARDLESS of who the president nominates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert: Appointing next U.S. Supreme Court justice, president could postpone confirmation hearings

Posted: Feb 14, 2016 11:34 PM EST Updated: Feb 14, 2016 11:58 PM EST
By Lydia Hu
 

President Obama could avoid seeking confirmation of a Supreme Court appointee during the remaining months of his term, says one local expert.

Obama may exercise a constitutional power for “recess appointment.”

Professor William G. Ross, of Cumberland Law School, is a constitutional law expert.  He says that a confirmation hearing would be “rambunctious.”  

“It is very possible, almost certain, that anyone that Obama nominates will encounter considerable political opposition,” Ross said.  During Saturday’s debate, Republican presidential candidates called for Obama to refrain from making an appointment.

A recess appointment would allow Obama to avoid a confirmation process this year and unilaterally appoint a justice to the bench while Congress is in recess.  Ross says determining when Congress is fully recessed can be a complicated matter, subject to its own legal scrutiny, but there are many who would say Congress is currently in recess until Monday, Feb.  22. 

A justice appointed through a recess appointment would sit on the bench until early 2017 when a new Congress was in session.  At that point, confirmation would be sought. 

“Even if President Obama were to make a recess appointment, it is not certain by any means that the Senate would confirm that appointment when it reconvenes in January, particularly if there is a Republican majority next January,” said Ross.

There has never been a sitting Supreme Court justice removed from the bench, so refusing to confirm a justice appointed by recess appointment would be an historical first.

According to Ross, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the last president to exercise recess appointment powers with Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in 1956.

This unanticipated judicial vacancy in an election year highlights the political nature of appointments. “It certainly is heavily political, more political than constitutional law scholars would like to see it,” said Ross. 

If the president seeks Senate confirmation during the remaining months of his term, but fails to secure it, then the next president will likely make the appointment, said Ross.

“It will make voters more aware that the course of this Supreme Court could be heavily affected by the new justice, particularly since so many of the decisions have been 5-4 decisions,” he said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is generally considered a swing vote, with the remaining justices split between 4 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices, which included Justice Scalia.

http://www.wtvm.com/story/31220757/expert-appointing-next-us-supreme-court-justice-president-could-postpone-confirmation-hearings

 

Professor Ross was on Law Review with Obama at Harvard Law School. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A recess appointment would also be a huge mistake.  It would cause an unnecessary political firestorm and reinforce GOP arguments about "lawlessness", even though it's his constitutional authority.

Also, the Republicans are probably just going to have pro forma sessions the entire year to block Obama from doing any recess appointments, so I'm not sure he could do it even if he wanted to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, a recess appointment would be deeply unfair to the person appointed.  It's supposed to be a lifetime appointment, but taking the position knowing that they could be tossed off the bench next year by the new president - either Republican or Democratic.  Who would want something like that?  

The only way that works is if the appointment is a consensus type candidate, say a former senator who takes the position without any ambition of being on the bench.  IOW, they'd have to take it knowing that they were acceptable to GOP Senators AND knowing that it is a temporary appointment only.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Fox News even read Starnes' articles before they post them at the top of their website?

Hey Republicans -- Don't screw this up

By Todd Starnes

Published February 15, 2016

The race for the White House comes down to one simple question. Who do you want nominating justices to the highest court in the land -- a Johnny-come-lately conservative or a proven constitutional conservative?

Now -- I want to say something to all you folks out there who profess to be good churchgoing Christians.

You could have prevented this from happening. But you refused to vote for Mitt Romney. You said he was too liberal. You said he was a Mormon. So you stayed home -- and Barack Obama got re-elected.

To paraphrase Bonhoeffer:  not to vote is to vote.

So here we are, America -- at a crossroads.

Soon we will find out what Senate Republican backbones are made of. Will they have the courage to withstand the media firestorm and block President Obama's nominee?

And what about all the gun-toting, Bible-clinging conservatives? Will they bother to vote on Election Day?

The 2016 presidential race just got real, folks.

The fate of religious liberty, the right to bear arms -- the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.

 

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/15/hey-republicans-dont-screw-this-up.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Does Fox News even read Starnes' articles before they post them at the top of their website?

Hey Republicans -- Don't screw this up

By Todd Starnes

Published February 15, 2016

The race for the White House comes down to one simple question. Who do you want nominating justices to the highest court in the land -- a Johnny-come-lately conservative or a proven constitutional conservative?

Now -- I want to say something to all you folks out there who profess to be good churchgoing Christians.

You could have prevented this from happening. But you refused to vote for Mitt Romney. You said he was too liberal. You said he was a Mormon. So you stayed home -- and Barack Obama got re-elected.

To paraphrase Bonhoeffer:  not to vote is to vote.

So here we are, America -- at a crossroads.

Soon we will find out what Senate Republican backbones are made of. Will they have the courage to withstand the media firestorm and block President Obama's nominee?

And what about all the gun-toting, Bible-clinging conservatives? Will they bother to vote on Election Day?

The 2016 presidential race just got real, folks.

The fate of religious liberty, the right to bear arms -- the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.

 

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/15/hey-republicans-dont-screw-this-up.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This reads like an Onion network article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Do you SERIOUSLY think they'd be saying that if, say, Ginsburg retired or passed away?

This isn't about blocking off his term.  It's 100% about ideology.  They want another justice like Scalia to replace him.  Same as the Democrats wanted with Powell, and O'Connor, etc.  And, notably, Clarence Thomas, who replaced Thurgood Marshall.  That doesn't mean the Republicans will win in that effort (the Democrats didn't with Thomas), but let's not oversimplify it.  This is about who is being replaced, not that someone is being replaced at all.

I'm really glad you reminded me of that . . . Talk about shifting the balance of the Court . . .

I am not sure I understand your point.  The Republicans are clamoring about changing the balance of the court because Scalia was a such a staunch Conservative. 

I don't think this game is played that way.  I vote against my economic interest every Presidential Election because I want Liberal Justices.  I know they die.  Last week I posted something about voting for Hillary because Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 139 or something.  I don't want a Republican replacing her.  Hillary is G.D. right that elections have consequences.  I voted for Obama.  I want my full term.  This COUNTRY voted for him TWICE.  If Republicans cut him off at the knees on this, it would be a first.

I don't know how this is going to play out, but it is a heck of a firestorm.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

Democrats are really complaining about a senate majority leader being an obstructionist?

 

Seems Legit

HarryReid.jpg

More like I thought it was strange to say blocking any attempt to nominate a Justice for nearly a year and passing legislation are basically the same thing. But you can keep pulling arguments out of your *** and words in my mouth if you want

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, silentbob1272 said:

 

Did that filibuster happen?  Oh, no...it didn't.

Didn't they at least NAME Alito as a nominee before the "threat" of a filibuster became a real conversation piece?

Didn't Alito actually get a vote?

Wasn't he nominated?  I'm pretty sure he's a US Supreme Court Justice.

McConnell has come out before anyone has been named and stated they won't confirm.  Now if that's just talk and they at least end up getting to the voting stage the point is moot but seeing how the GOP has operated since Obama has been in office with their mode of we must try and obstruct everything...I'm going to agree with others and say it's different.  

I'll eat me crow if I'm wrong but I don't have enough belief that the GOP leaders in Congress are willing to do that because...that's not really what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

If Republicans are successful at delaying a replacement until next year, you don't think Democrats are going to pull this exact same thing in the future?  And Democrats at that point will have a rock solid argument...this was the precedent set by Republicans.  The actual consequence of the action (that you seem to support) will be a precedent that blocks any SC nominations during election years.  

The transparency of their political play doesn't matter if they succeed at it and set a template for future Senate actions when there's divided government.  

Here's what you keep glossing over.  Democrats are going to do what they've always done with Republican appointments, which is whatever the **** they want to do.  They have never had any shame whatsoever in attacking Republican nominees, and taking whatever steps to try to block them.

You say "Democrats at that point will have a rock solid argument…this was the precedent set by Republicans."  But you don't see that train running in both directions.  Republicans are, and should be, making that same argument now.  This President voted to filibuster the Alito nomination. NOBODY said Alito was unqualified.  Nobody.  It was a pure political move to try to move the ideology of the Court.  Now Republicans are doing the exact same thing -- trying to prevent the President from moving the ideological balance of the Court -- and all of a sudden it's a tragedy that must be stopped.

You keep acting as if obstructionism toward Supreme Court appointments is some dirty trick invented by Republicans.  This is straight out of the Democrat playbook.  I'll say it again -- I don't blame them at all.  Tell me what the rules are and I'll play by them, but we're not having one set of rules for you and another for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, holymoses said:

I'm really glad you reminded me of that . . . Talk about shifting the balance of the Court . . .

I am not sure I understand your point.  The Republicans are clamoring about changing the balance of the court because Scalia was a such a staunch Conservative. 

I don't think this game is played that way.  I vote against my economic interest every Presidential Election because I want Liberal Justices.  I know they die.  Last week I posted something about voting for Hillary because Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 139 or something.  I don't want a Republican replacing her.  Hillary is G.D. right that elections have consequences.  I voted for Obama.  I want my full term.  This COUNTRY voted for him TWICE.  If Republicans cut him off at the knees on this, it would be a first.

I don't know how this is going to play out, but it is a heck of a firestorm.   

See my post immediately above.  Yes, Thomas shifted the balance of the Court.  And he got 52 votes for confirmation because Democrats attacked him personally and professionally and then refused to vote for him nearly en masse.  

You say you don't think the game is played that way.  Well, then your side needs to stop playing it that way.  You are reaping what you have sown.  It's that simple.  You can have the Court you want because elections have consequences, or you can block nominees because you want the Court to look how you want it to look, but you can't have both.  But that's exactly what Democrats want right now.  "Oh, gosh, y'all should TOTALLY just rubber stamp whoever the PRESIDENT puts up, because he's the PRESIDENT and blocking judicial nominees is bad and stuff."

Ignoring that this President is the same Senator who voted to filibuster the nomination of a well qualified justice.  Sorry, GTFO with that noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Scalia dying was unfortunate for the democrats, this will virtually had the election over to the republicans.  The slim chances that a democratic POTUS would be elected now seems unfathomable to me.   

Well, if that was the case then McConnell torpedoed that the moment he opened his mouth about not even allowing a vote to take place within hours of his death. That and the other Republicans saying the same thing can easily be turned against them as a wedge issue between the GOP and moderates and the attacks will only escalate the longer the battle goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

See my post immediately above.  Yes, Thomas shifted the balance of the Court.  And he got 52 votes for confirmation because Democrats attacked him personally and professionally and then refused to vote for him nearly en masse.  

You say you don't think the game is played that way.  Well, then your side needs to stop playing it that way.  You are reaping what you have sown.  It's that simple.  You can have the Court you want because elections have consequences, or you can block nominees because you want the Court to look how you want it to look, but you can't have both.  But that's exactly what Democrats want right now.  "Oh, gosh, y'all should TOTALLY just rubber stamp whoever the PRESIDENT puts up, because he's the PRESIDENT and blocking judicial nominees is bad and stuff."

Ignoring that this President is the same Senator who voted to filibuster the nomination of a well qualified justice.  Sorry, GTFO with that noise.

I recall two challenges, only one successful.  Thomas, of course, had that Anita Hill thing.  If she was telling the truth, I think it was a fair concern.

You might recall why I think Bork was a fair challenge.  At the time, it was all about his ideology, which is wrong.  To the victors go the spoils (as RedBlack or Beernuts or the guy who had a crush on Chuck Hagel or one of the moderates who used to hang out here liked to say.)

During Watergate, after the Court approved the subpoena of the Tapes, Nixon ordered the Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox . . . . You can't imagine how confusing it was for me as a child Hearing about Archibald Cox and Tiny Archibald in the same era.)    The Attorney General resigned in protest.  As did the next in line.  Third in line was Bork, who allegedly was promised the next Supreme Court Appointment if he carried out the "Saturday Night Massacre" which he did. 

Then you had one of the forgotten heroes in American History, Leon Jaworski, who was hand picked by Bork and Nixon . . . and I think Alexander Haig, to fill Cox's position.  Cox's staffers were despondent.  Jaworski was a Democrat . . . who had voted for Nixon twice and headed up "Democrats for Nixon".  And he was a Texan. 

But Jaworski kept the pressure on, fighting up to the Supreme Court to have the Tapes turned over.  At that point, it was all over for Nixon and he was compelled to resign.  But, as a 7 year old, I distinctly remember a brief period of outrage when it looked like Nixon was going to get away with it.  THAT was Bork's doing.

OF course, I didn't know any of this until I started doing some research after my wife was fired.  While some considered Watergate "Our Long National Nightmare."  Nathan Deal considered it a pretty good idea that just needed some fine tuning.  Instead of replacing the prosecutor with a man of integrity and competence like Jaworksi (youngest to ever pass Texas Bar, Civil Right Attorney, Nazi war crime investigator) Deal hired Holly LaBerge, career retail clerk and two year lobbyist.

THIS is a GREAT READ on that history by Jaworski's grandson.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/11/opinion/l-what-bork-did-in-watergate-was-obstruction-293787.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

Here's what you keep glossing over.  Democrats are going to do what they've always done with Republican appointments, which is whatever the **** they want to do.  They have never had any shame whatsoever in attacking Republican nominees, and taking whatever steps to try to block them.

You say "Democrats at that point will have a rock solid argument…this was the precedent set by Republicans."  But you don't see that train running in both directions.  Republicans are, and should be, making that same argument now.  This President voted to filibuster the Alito nomination. NOBODY said Alito was unqualified.  Nobody.  It was a pure political move to try to move the ideology of the Court.  Now Republicans are doing the exact same thing -- trying to prevent the President from moving the ideological balance of the Court -- and all of a sudden it's a tragedy that must be stopped.

You keep acting as if obstructionism toward Supreme Court appointments is some dirty trick invented by Republicans.  This is straight out of the Democrat playbook.  I'll say it again -- I don't blame them at all.  Tell me what the rules are and I'll play by them, but we're not having one set of rules for you and another for me.

First of all, you keep making these sweeping claims like "Democrats do whatever the **** they want to do" that are factually untrue.  They could have blocked Alito, for instance.  They didn't.  Almost half of the Democrats voted for cloture knowing full well that meant Alito would be confirmed.  Some of them filibustered, and that was wrong.  But ultimately, Bush got the the conservative nominee that he wanted.  It seems like your argument is, "Democrats have done these things that I don't like, so Republicans are justified in whatever they propose whatever that might be."

In other words, you want to make this about party.  It's not about party.  It's about the precedent that will be set by this path that Republicans are marching towards.  Namely, Republicans are arguing that no president can ever appoint a justice during an election year.  You say, "well, they don't really mean that."  Except, by all accounts they do mean that.  Would they be rank hypocrites and argue the opposite if the tables were turned?  Of course.  Doesn't change the fact that if they block this president from appointing a nominee, no president in the future will be allowed to appoint a nominee during an election year during divided government.  That's unlike anything we've seen in recent history.  It's not "the Democrats playbook" because Democrats have never done this.  At least, you can't show an instance where Democrats have tried to block a Republican president from appointing a justice during an election year.  So we are in uncharted area where the out party is trying to completely block the president from appointing any nominee whatsoever during an election year.  

I have acknowledged Democratic obstructionism several times in this thread.  You might read back through this thread to see all of those acknowledgements, because you seem to have missed them when reading my posts.  This isn't about which party is doing what, it's about the template that gets set for future presidents of either party.  And just because some Democrats in the past have filibustered a Republican nominee - unsuccessfully because many Democrats voted for cloture - does not excuse what Republicans are now attempting to do.  Again, you want to make this about party and not look at the consequences of what Republicans are proposing, and you're doing that out of some vague sense of revenge against perceived past wrongs by Democrats in the past.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

See my post immediately above.  Yes, Thomas shifted the balance of the Court.  And he got 52 votes for confirmation because Democrats attacked him personally and professionally and then refused to vote for him nearly en masse.  

You say you don't think the game is played that way.  Well, then your side needs to stop playing it that way.  You are reaping what you have sown.  It's that simple.  You can have the Court you want because elections have consequences, or you can block nominees because you want the Court to look how you want it to look, but you can't have both.  But that's exactly what Democrats want right now.  "Oh, gosh, y'all should TOTALLY just rubber stamp whoever the PRESIDENT puts up, because he's the PRESIDENT and blocking judicial nominees is bad and stuff."

Ignoring that this President is the same Senator who voted to filibuster the nomination of a well qualified justice.  Sorry, GTFO with that noise.

That's a straw man argument.

Thomas was accused of sexual assault.  That's very different from what Republicans are saying today.  Harriett Myers was rejected because she was unqualified...and prominent conservatives said that about her.  That's very different from what Republicans are saying today.

Republicans are not attacking the president's nominee based on ideology, qualifications, or accusations of wrong-doing.  They are flatly rejecting ANY nominee before the president has even named one.  

Again, show us where Democrats have ever done that, let alone tried to block a Republican president from appointing any SC nominee to the bench during an election year.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...