SCJ Antonin Scalia Died

[Daverino]

I think most folks here are missing the point. Lame Duck presidents generally try to not begin things of this import on their way out the door, in deference to the next administration and the will of the American people. It's 9 months away from a presidential election, it seems much better form to let the next administration make this call. The idea being that the next administration better reflects the current will of the American people.

The longest it has taken for a nominee to be voted on was 125 days (Louis Brandeis, nominee of Woodrow Wilson). The average is 25 days for a nominee to be either rejected, withdrawn, or confirmed.

Obama has ~340 days left in office.

[Dallas Tex]

QUOTE=Daltex;759370]

Obama has a constitutional mandate to fill this position. He was elected 4 years ago to fill his term.
Why would you possibly believe that he should abdicate his oath of office and not fulfill his obligation ?

This is right wing bluster.

Your contention is that every time a president puts off or doesn't perform an action that is constitutionally mandated he is "abdicating his oath of office" ? That would be a lot of abdicating for presidents of both parties.

I'm not asking for anyone to agree. I'm simply trying to help explain the rationale of the opposing view.

[Daverino]

I'm not asking for anyone to agree. I'm simply trying to help explain the rationale of the opposing view.

I'm pretty sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would act no differently, given what's at stake.

[UnfilteredDregs]

In Scalia's defense for this one, I don't think it was every proven that Herrera was innocent, it's just that he claimed that he was and that there was some evidence that his brother is the one who did the shooting. Also, I don't think Scalia actually said those exact words, but he did say something close to that.

Thanks for pointing this out...I went and did a bit of in depth reading on the subject. In essence Scalia defended the system, protected it, as if factual proof of innocence brought up at procedural inconvenient times would render the system dysfunctional due to logistically bogging the process down. Patently ridiculous IMO, law is supposed to protect the innocent, in light of the reality that such incidences occur the system is broken and needs to be fixed and if capital punishment proves to be a wily enough gambit, whereas it's never foolproof, then it simply needs to be thrown out.

[rwsaunders]

I believe that it was George Carlin who joked..."Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" I try to apply this thought to politics as well.

[Jonathan]

If the president were truly a lame duck he wouldn't still be making conservatives stupid batshit crazy. Just watch the repub debates, he still makes these folks crazy and stupid. I'm mean, poor Rubio, when his mind farts he just blames Obama. It's because the President is active and effective they will try not to hold confirmation hearings. This president is on the job until the last second is left on the clock. I'm surprised that between Iran Contra, Monica, and the financial collapse and stupid wars, more folks don't recognize that the president is still getting it done vs his two term predecessors and that's precisely what Mitch McConnell is trying to avoid. They have gotten an ass kicking with Iran and a climate deal the last few months. Important cases are being heard. They should confirm a Justice. It's their job and not to mention that Obama has stacked the lower courts with Judges and these cases before the court often reflect that. A 4-4 tie won't over turn a lower court decision so republicans lose any way.

[vvv321]

I'm not asking for anyone to agree. I'm simply trying to help explain the rationale of the opposing view.

The actual rationale for the opposing view is, "Well we have no chance in appointing who we want now, so lets try to postpone it until we might have a chance in hell of getting what we want."

Boo hoo it doesn't work that way.

[UnfilteredDregs]

The actual rationale for the opposing view is, "Well we have no chance in appointing who we want now, so lets try to postpone it until we might have a chance in hell of getting what we want."

Boo hoo it doesn't work that way.

...and there is this:

"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." - Mitch McConnell

[Saab2000]

I think most folks here are missing the point. Lame Duck presidents generally try to not begin things of this import on their way out the door, in deference to the next administration and the will of the American people. It's 9 months away from a presidential election, it seems much better form to let the next administration make this call. The idea being that the next administration better reflects the current will of the American people.

He's not trying to begin anything. This is a presidential obligation and is the result of the sudden and untimely passing of a Supreme Court Justice.

We'll see what happens but for anyone to suggest the president should not nominate someone seems to miss the point. The president will be in office for nearly another year and to let the Supreme Court's work sit idle for a full year doesn't seem like a good idea.

We never know how a nominee will turn out. I hope the president nominates the best judge and brightest mind, not one to fill a politically expedient role. That's not what the framers had in mind. The politicization of the Supreme Court will be the downfall of this nation and that applies to both parties.

[fastupslowdown]

He's not trying to begin anything. This is a presidential obligation and is the result of the sudden and untimely passing of a Supreme Court Justice.

We'll see what happens but for anyone to suggest the president should not nominate someone seems to miss the point. The president will be in office for nearly another year and to let the Supreme Court's work sit idle for a full year doesn't seem like a good idea.

We never know how a nominee will turn out. I hope the president nominates the best judge and brightest mind, not one to fill a politically expedient role. That's not what the framers had in mind. The politicization of the Supreme Court will be the downfall of this nation and that applies to both parties.

Obama has been challenged by the courts in his use of executive action. It's not unreasonable to suggest this will be Obama's litmus test. The President and the Republican Controlled Congress have been at odds. Obama will want to stack the deck in his favor. This is not simply about trying to find the best man or woman for the job. This could not be more political.

[Saab2000]

Obama has been challenged by the courts in his use of executive action. It's not unreasonable to suggest this will be Obama's litmus test. The President and the Republican Controlled Congress have been at odds. Obama will want to stack the deck in his favor. This is not simply about trying to find the best man or woman for the job. This could not be more political.

I'm not naive. I know it's totally political and has been for the entire time I've been aware of these things. There haven't been many non-contentious appointments since I've been paying attention to the world of Washington goings-on.

Regarding executive action, this isn't new to President Obama. If I'm not mistaken, President Bush and presumably many presidents before him have made liberal (no pun intended) use of this privilege.

I'm not a lawyer or a scholar or a historian of any sort but I've always been told that the point of having three branches is to keep them all in check. So while President Obama may well have this as his litmus test I'd be very disappointed if he were to nominate a justice who would simply allow a stronger executive branch to emerge. That's not what the framers wanted either.

But yeah, I know, it's totally political. It probably always has been that way.

[rowdyhillrambler]

I just read that if the current boss doesn't get it done, when Donny T is elected, he has already announced "Supreme Court Justic Judy Sheindlin" will be nominated. I am not sure if this is true..

[Mabouya]

Lame Duck isn't a scientific term and evolves. The president is definitely currently considered a lame duck.

I absolutely agree on this - the GOP has considered President Obama a lame duck from the day he was originally inaugurated...

[j44ke]

I think most folks here are missing the point. Lame Duck presidents generally try to not begin things of this import on their way out the door, in deference to the next administration and the will of the American people. It's 9 months away from a presidential election, it seems much better form to let the next administration make this call. The idea being that the next administration better reflects the current will of the American people.

We aren't missing the point. The argument is weak and has the tone of a someone who finds fairness only when fate breaks to their advantage. I personally think the argument shows how entirely desperate a relatively small group of people (as a percentage of this whole United States) are to maintain their belief that they represent the righteous majority opinion.

Like Scalia wondered - the country has left some people behind ideologically and grown beyond them. And I am not counting myself as someone who has kept up with it. In more issues than I care to admit, I realize I am stepping back onto the sidewalk as the parade goes by.

[72gmc]

Seems to me a nation becomes a lame duck when it ceases to maintain essential functions and descends into fear and squabble.

Doesn't matter who is in office or who died. The nation needs an intact court to function properly. It can't possibly make everyone happy. But it's properly done when the sitting president gets to do the job he or she was elected to do.

[Dallas Tex]

We aren't missing the point. The argument is weak and has the tone of a someone who finds fairness only when fate breaks to their advantage. I personally think the argument shows how entirely desperate a relatively small group of people (as a percentage of this whole United States) are to maintain their belief that they represent the righteous majority opinion.
.

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

[murphy]

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

I am sure the same argument might get made, but the fact of the matter is that we need an odd number of Supreme Court justices so that split decisions are not being made for the next 300 odd days. What you are suggesting would basically make the Supreme Court inoperable.

Whether you agree with the President or not, he has the obligation to nominate someone. If the Republicans decide to filibuster out of pettiness, then they are disrespecting Scalia as he was strict in his interpretation of the Constitution which give the President the power that you so desperately seek to take away from him.

[guido]

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

Yes. Unlike the current generation of Republicans, the Democrats still believe in responsible government and the important role it plays. The current crop of Republicans do not respect the legitimacy of any election that does not happen to go their way and we have seen the past 7 years the specific denial of the result of elections. This is quite unprecedented in American history.

[Dallas Tex]

I am sure the same argument might get made, but the fact of the matter is that we need an odd number of Supreme Court justices so that split decisions are not being made for the next 300 odd days. What you are suggesting would basically make the Supreme Court inoperable.

Whether you agree with the President or not, he has the obligation to nominate someone. If the Republicans decide to filibuster out of pettiness, then they are disrespecting Scalia as he was strict in his interpretation of the Constitution which give the President the power that you so desperately seek to take away from him.

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.

[Dallas Tex]

Yes. Unlike the current generation of Republicans, the Democrats still believe in responsible government and the important role it plays. The current crop of Republicans do not respect the legitimacy of any election that does not happen to go their way and we have seen the past 7 years the specific denial of the result of elections. This is quite unprecedented in American history.

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.