SCJ Antonin Scalia Died

[murphy]

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm explaining the valid argument that the potus consider waiting to nominate.

No one, including myself, is seeking ''desperately to take away" the potus' power to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court doesn't become 'inoperable' with 8 judges.

"Filibuster out of pettiness" seems like a misplaced comment as either party would be pursuing the same actions with the same fervor.

I shouldn't feed the troll, but ...

It isn't a valid argument. He has the obligation and the power. By not fulfilling this, he would be breaking his oath of office.

By saying he should not do this, you are trying to take away this President's power to fulfill his obligations. Simple as that. You aren't trying to take away the power from the office of President but rather this President.

The Supreme Court has nine justices for a reason; that reason is to avoid split decisions which I mentioned. If there are nine justices, split decisions can't happen. TL;DR the Supreme Court needs nine justices so that it can pass down judgments which is the entire reason for it.

The comment wasn't misplaced, I meant to put it there. One of the Republican presidential nominees has already gone on the record about his plan to filibuster. I have no problem saying both parties have used such tactics before, but the Democrats have never done it so early on. Slowdown in confirmations is expected, but simply saying it won't happen is a whole new low.

[djg21]

There is no valid Constitutional argument.

Why is it that the right believes in a strict textualist construction of the Constitution only when such an interpretation serves it's ideological and political ends? Obama should fill the vacancy asap so the remainder of the current term can be completed with a full complement of justices. He was elected by a wide margin to a second 4-year term in the Whitehouse. The electorate already has decisively spoken. If the Republicans in the Senate obstruct, Obama should make a recess appointment, as is his Constitutional prerogative as President.

[Sbti]

Green eggs and ham has already been done.

[Dallas Tex]

I shouldn't feed the troll, but ...

It isn't a valid argument. He has the obligation and the power. By not fulfilling this, he would be breaking his oath of office.

By saying he should not do this, you are trying to take away this President's power to fulfill his obligations. Simple as that. You aren't trying to take away the power from the office of President but rather this President.

The Supreme Court has nine justices for a reason; that reason is to avoid split decisions which I mentioned. If there are nine justices, split decisions can't happen. TL;DR the Supreme Court needs nine justices so that it can pass down judgments which is the entire reason for it.

The comment wasn't misplaced, I meant to put it there. One of the Republican presidential nominees has already gone on the record about his plan to filibuster. I have no problem saying both parties have used such tactics before, but the Democrats have never done it so early on. Slowdown in confirmations is expected, but simply saying it won't happen is a whole new low.

Its small-minded to label people that don't agree with you 'trolls'

To defer nominating, he in no way breaks his oath of office. Is he currently breaking his oath of office this moment because he hasn't yet named a nominee?

Supreme Court can function with 8 justices. Or 7. Or 6. A split decision simply leaves the ruling of the lower court in tact. With 9 justices, any justice can abstain resulting a split decision.

[Jonathan]

The people who have business in front of the court have a right to justice. Not obstruction of justice.

I'm not sure how you get from "advise and consent" as the senate's roll in confirmation to waiting 11 months just to see if an electoral outcome is beneficial. That's just silly and beyond normal politics and it's not really defensible at any intelligent level.

At the end of all this, Scalia may be honored in his passing; I suspect election turnout will be pretty high and he thought that's how it ought to be.

[nahtnoj]

The viewpoint of "my team is great and the other team is awful" is beyond naive. Both teams are bought & paid for, both teams are dishonest & corupt, and both teams are unspeakably ruthless.

So you're calling yourself beyond naive? Because it seems like in all these conversations, you come here and make arguments for your team while hiding behind a veneer of impartiality and folksy common-sense. It's an utter predictable act that got old a long time ago.

[murphy]

Its small-minded to label people that don't agree with you 'trolls'

To defer nominating, he in no way breaks his oath of office. Is he currently breaking his oath of office this moment because he hasn't yet named a nominee?

Supreme Court can function with 8 justices. Or 7. Or 6. A split decision simply leaves the ruling of the lower court in tact. With 9 justices, a justice can abstain an end in a split decision.

So you know, I labeled you a troll as you have provided no reasoning behind your sentiment, but put it forward as truth. In addition, I would label you troll again for your asking if he is breaking his oath of office by not having named a nominee yet.

The Constitution reads: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court". I don't see anything about the President putting off nominations whenever it is an election year.

Yes, the Supreme Court can operate while having fewer justices, but its capacity and worth is diminished by the fact that it cannot give the weight of its decisions when these splits will inevitably happen.

Nothing we say here will have any difference on what actually occurs. So why don't we just agree that we disagree? Also, so you know, if this had happened during a Republican presidency, I would be unhappy that they got to choose a justice, but accepting that it was totally within their rights to do so and if any of my representatives tried to derail that, they would be hearing from me.

[Dallas Tex]

So you're calling yourself beyond naive? Because it seems like in all these conversations, you come here and make arguments for your team while hiding behind a veneer of impartiality and folksy common-sense. It's an utter predictable act that got old a long time ago.

I don't have a team. I don't vote straight ticket. I have a moral compass, unlike folks who join a 'team' and feel obligated to agree 100% with the company line.

This thread is a bit of a political discussion. The term Political Discussion has taken new meaning in recent years, it used to mean hearing & understanding differing viewpoints. Deciding what you view as best and defending that.

Currently Political Discussion means a discussion between like minded folks agreeing with each other and patting themselves on the back for doing so. And angrily denouncing anyone on a personal level that disagrees. Sadly its all talking points now, with no depth.

[davids]

And do you honestly expect anyone to believe that democrats wouldn't be making this same argument if the roles were reversed?

Wait. Are you now arguing against yourself?

[guido]

The viewpoint of "my team is great and the other team is awful" is beyond naive. Both teams are bought & paid for, both teams are dishonest & corupt, and both teams are unspeakably ruthless.

This is a common defense that holds absolutely no water. One only needs to compare the two most recent debates. On one, the issues were discussed and sensible solutions were proposed and debated. On the other the participants were completely unhinged. The ideas discussed were either completely beyond the rule of law or completely detached from reality. As to corruption one side focuses on removing the influence of special interest money from the process, the other is funded unprecedented amounts contributed by by 150 of the most wealthy individuals in the country. On subject after subject from the economy, the environment, foreign policy etc. one side has skewed well beyond historical norms, the other hasn't. Even the patron saint of the right Ronald Reagan would not pass the current litmus tests. So spare us your parroted "both sides do it" line.

[UnfilteredDregs]

I don't have a team. I don't vote straight ticket. I have a moral compass, unlike folks who join a 'team' and feel obligated to agree 100% with the company line.

This thread is a bit of a political discussion. The term Political Discussion has taken new meaning in recent years, it used to mean hearing & understanding differing viewpoints. Deciding what you view as best and defending that.

Currently Political Discussion means a discussion between like minded folks agreeing with each other and patting themselves on the back for doing so. And angrily denouncing anyone on a personal level that disagrees. Sadly its all talking points now, with no depth.

Your moral compass needs calibration.

Your tossing herring here poorly attempting to distract from the fact that your notion is invalid when perceived via the expectation of the law of the land.

If you don't like the rules there's other countries.

It's simply preposterous to propose that a sitting president, elected to consecutive terms by the majority, should shirk his constitutional duty by allowing a seat on the Supreme Court to sit vacant and render the judicial branch of our government inoperable for 11 months.

The people already have spoken.

Ridiculous obstructionist nonsense.

[vertical_doug]

This is a common defense that holds absolutely no water. One only needs to compare the two most recent debates. On one, the issues were discussed and sensible solutions were proposed and debated. On the other the participants were completely unhinged. The ideas discussed were either completely beyond the rule of law or completely detached from reality. As to corruption one side focuses on removing the influence of special interest money from the process, the other is funded unprecedented amounts contributed by by 150 of the most wealthy individuals in the country. On subject after subject from the economy, the environment, foreign policy etc. one side has skewed well beyond historical norms, the other hasn't. Even the patron saint of the right Ronald Reagan would not pass the current litmus tests. So spare us your parroted "both sides do it" line.

Historically, if I recall correctly, Daltex and I probably disagree on many things political. In this case, I tend to agree with some of the points. Both republicans and democrats receive money from extremely wealthy individuals. The Koch's give to republicans, Soros gives to democrats. You can just look at the list of Clinton Foundation donors. . . Maybe it is not equal, but it does rhyme.

The propaganda model Chomsky warned about in 'Manufacturing Consent' is alive and well with both parties.

Although, in my opinion, President Obama has the right to nominate someone to the court, the senate has the right to contest it. Some of this may even be partial blow back because when President Obama was a senator, he opposed both of George W Bush nominees to the court.

Ultimately, you never know how these things may play out. If the republicans are too obstructionist, it may blow up in their face in the end. I have no idea who the next president will be, but President Taft became a supreme court justice after his final term as president back at the turn of the century. (Although it was not immediate.) If the next president happens to be democrat, and ends up nominating Obama, a few heads may explode.

I really don't think it is at all fair to label Daltex as a troll, because frankly, he is just expressing a different view.

[Mabouya]

Although, in my opinion, President Obama has the right to nominate someone to the court, the senate has the right to contest it.

It isn't clear what you mean by "contesting" an appointment.

The Senate's job isn't to announce that it will do nothing regardless of the individual nominated, then sit on it's hands; it is to hold hearings and vote on the nominee. How far back does the Senate get to try to run out the clock? They currently propose 1 year. Next time will it be 1.5? 2? 4? Whatever they feel like doing?

BTW, they have already set the precedent of not acting on the President's judicial nominees for tons of lower courts for extended periods of time. This is only the latest outrage.

[Scott G.]

Delay, delay, delay, delay...

Looking forward to being ruled by the 9th Circuit for the next 14 months.
El Presidente could nominate Hillary Clinton, that would throw confusion into the ranks.
What would Mitch do ? Which would he want, the Presidency for 8 years or a chance at the Supreme Court.
Or future President Clinton could promise the nomination to then Mr. Obama, the mind reels
with the plotting and counter plotting going on.

I will miss Scalia, he was fun to read, at least the Thomas gag order is lifted now.

Aside, House of Cards is being rewritten even as we speak.

[theflashunc]

The President has a four year term, or a maximum of eight years. Not seven and a gap year to travel around and find himself.

By this "final year means you don't get to set policy," does this mean Sen Rubio doesn't get to vote on it because he's in final year as the junior Senator from Florida and isn't seeking re-election?

It sucks the guy died when he did, but them's the breaks sometimes.

Amazed that folks who often like to think of themselves as strict constructionists would openly advocate for the executive and legislative branches not fulfilling their responsibilities, just because of awkward timing. McConnell and Co could have easily dragged this out for awhile, instead of immediately shouting from the rooftops "nyah nyah wait a year!" But this is also what happens when you elect people who have open disdain for government, they do a shitty job of running it.

[vertical_doug]

There is risk the republicans get this totally wrong too.

President Obama nominates someone. Initially, the senate refuses to proceed, but eventually, they hold the hearings after significantly delaying, then vote down the nominee along party lines. President Obama will nominate another candidate, at which point the Republicans slow walk the process saying not enough time blah blah blah.

For some republicans, this is such a galvanizing issue for their local constituents, they really have little choice but to vote down the Obama nominee. (otherwise, next election, they will face a local tea partier, and lose. Remember all politics are local) Actually all are local except the presidency. President Obama's nominee needs to be costly for the republicans to refuse on a national level. It could galvanize enough independents to swing the vote democrat for the next president. That is how I see it, that is how Obama may play it.

Ultimately, we live the Chinese curse.

[Matthew J]

For some republicans, this is such a galvanizing issue for their local constituents, they really have little choice but to vote down the Obama nominee. (otherwise, next election, they will face a local tea partier, and lose. Remember all politics are local) Actually all are local except the presidency.

In states such as Illinois, Wisconsin, and even Florida where the ultra conservatives do not have numbers sufficient to challenge moderates, taking a hard line position could well be the difference between a Republican or Democratic senator winning the general election.

[choke]

The viewpoint of "my team is great and the other team is awful" is beyond naive. Both teams are bought & paid for, both teams are dishonest & corupt, and both teams are unspeakably ruthless.

Many years ago on another forum, a user named Bulgron posted the following....I thought then, and still think to this day, that it is one of the best things that I've ever read online.

"Let me see if I can clear that up for you.

A Democrat is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some social and economic things: race, sexual orientation, wealth, and freedom from religion. But the real, unofficial desire is to force everyone to rely on the government for their income, healthcare, housing, and other basic necessities, by encouraging businesses to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. This makes everyone dependent upon government so that the people have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Democrats. In this way the Democrats can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do.

A Republican is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some economic and social things: business freedom, freedom of religion, the protection of the unborn, and the normalization of what happens in other peoples' bedrooms. But the real, unofficial desire is to encourage large corporations to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. The Republicans then promise to create jobs by reducing the size of government (which they never do). This causes Americas, who want jobs, to have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Republicans. In this way the Republicans can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do."

[guido]

This is the most remarkable paranoid fantasy I think I have ever read... Wow.

Many years ago on another forum, a user named Bulgron posted the following....I thought then, and still think to this day, that it is one of the best things that I've ever read online.

"Let me see if I can clear that up for you.

A Democrat is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some social and economic things: race, sexual orientation, wealth, and freedom from religion. But the real, unofficial desire is to force everyone to rely on the government for their income, healthcare, housing, and other basic necessities, by encouraging businesses to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. This makes everyone dependent upon government so that the people have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Democrats. In this way the Democrats can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do.

A Republican is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some economic and social things: business freedom, freedom of religion, the protection of the unborn, and the normalization of what happens in other peoples' bedrooms. But the real, unofficial desire is to encourage large corporations to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. The Republicans then promise to create jobs by reducing the size of government (which they never do). This causes Americas, who want jobs, to have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Republicans. In this way the Republicans can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do."

[Cookietruck]

and speaking of paranoid, i guess people are actually quite upset that an autopsy wasn't performed (nevermind the fact his family didn't want one performed...)