SCJ Antonin Scalia Died

[theflashunc]

Uh, Justice Kennedy?

[vertical_doug]

Uh, Justice Kennedy?

He was nominated in Nov '87 and confirmed in Feb '88. So technically, the nomination did not happen during President Reagan's lame duck year only the confirmation.

But it does reinforce the argument, when and why would you draw an arbitrary line on date. I believe you don't.

[j44ke]

The President is not officially a "lame duck" until a new President has been elected. Obama still has well over 300 days left in his term. The argument seems to be that a President who has yet to be elected from an undetermined party is more deserved of making the appointment than a standing two-term President who was elected both times by a clear majority. That somehow this would be an act of fair play or something. Conveniently, there is a procedure in place that allows for ample discussion (and even rejection) of any nominee, so selection of a replacement has plenty of opportunities for fair play built into it. And based on the treatment of judicial nominees by this Congress for the last 7 years, I'd say the President's adversaries do not lack the leverage required to make their views known. The insistence on fair play at this juncture seems positively comedic.

[j44ke]

William Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower a month before the election as a recess appointment and then officially nominated and confirmed afterwards. Eisenhower's appointments (5) are interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwig...urt_candidates

Is 5 appointments the most made by one President? Or did FDR make more?

[monadnocky]

The logic of the notion that a "lame duck" President shouldn't fulfill his or her constitutional duties is bizarre to me. I mean, every President is a "lame duck" from day one - by this logic, what's the point of doing anything at all? As Jorn has pointed out above, the current occupant has almost a year left in his term. It's not like he has a few weeks.

I'm aware that the Constitution doesn't specify that a President should fill a SC vacancy immediately, but it does mention that this is the responsibility of the President and of Congress. I find it ironic that those who mourn Scalia's passing (who styled himself as a constitutional literalist) are suddenly screaming that any nomination should wait until the next President. You know, because... well, something.

I very much doubt that these voices would be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot, politically. And yes, of course, if a left-leaning justice had died during the presidency of a Republican president, we'd be hearing this (i.e., wait until the next administration).

[Dallas Tex]

The President is not officially a "lame duck" until a new President has been elected. Obama still has well over 300 days left in his term. The argument seems to be that a President who has yet to be elected from an undetermined party is more deserved of making the appointment than a standing two-term President who was elected both times by a clear majority. That somehow this would be an act of fair play or something. Conveniently, there is a procedure in place that allows for ample discussion (and even rejection) of any nominee, so selection of a replacement has plenty of opportunities for fair play built into it. And based on the treatment of judicial nominees by this Congress for the last 7 years, I'd say the President's adversaries do not lack the leverage required to make their views known. The insistence on fair play at this juncture seems positively comedic.

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

The spirit of the discussion is let the American people's voice be heard via the presidential election and let that voice choose a SC justice that will affect a generation of people.

[fiveller]

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

The spirit of the discussion is let the American people's voice be heard via the presidential election and let that voice choose a SC justice that will affect a generation of people.

The people's voice was heard in 2012 covering the period through Jan of next year. The party that lost has had a hard time reconciling that little tidbit time and again.

[theflashunc]

If we cannot select another Supreme Court justice in 11 months, we might as well just stop calling ourselves a superpower.

[BSUdude]

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

The spirit of the discussion is let the American people's voice be heard via the presidential election and let that voice choose a SC justice that will affect a generation of people.

If we're not going by a textbook definition of lame duck then wouldn't he be considered a lame duck if he can't get anything done? Congress "decides" whether or not he is lame duck in regards to the justice nomination. Just because this situation doesn't have much precedent doesn't mean the current pres should just roll over, and he won't. It's more troubling (but not surprising) to me that a few minutes after the death went public, conservatives are grandstanding that the president shouldn't fulfill the duties and obligations of the office to which he was elected and swore an oath.

[djg714]

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

The spirit of the discussion is let the American people's voice be heard via the presidential election and let that voice choose a SC justice that will affect a generation of people.

Doesn't work that way. The people don't decide the Supreme Court, even if it doesn't fit you. People elected the President for that reason. Funny how democracy works.

[EricKeller]

the world would be a better place if the Democrats had told GHWBush** that he didn't have the right to nominate Clarence Thomas. But it's the rankest sort of partisan nonsense to say that Obama shouldn't get to nominate Scalia's replacement.

** talk about your lame ducks

[Dallas Tex]

Doesn't work that way. The people don't decide the Supreme Court, even if it doesn't fit you. People elected the President for that reason. Funny how democracy works.

All due respect friend, I'm not trying to be argumentative but your response-post doesn't make sense to me.

[nahtnoj]

The quote, often attributed to Mark Twain, but apparently never said by anyone - "I've never wished a man dead, but I've read some obituaries with great pleasure" captures my sentiments perfectly. For the past few years Scalia abandoned any pretense of giving a damn about precedent and was just making things up to fit his ideology. It was craven and pathetic.

One thing we can count on in the ensuing nomination fight is the Republicans being out-maneuvered by the President. It took Mitch McConnell all of three hours to declare they were going to sit on their hands. Apparently they want to get their asses handed to them once more for old times sake.

[djg714]

All due respect friend, I'm not trying to be argumentative but your response-post doesn't make sense to me.

You are a funny dude.

[nahtnoj]

The spirit of the discussion is let the American people's voice be heard via the presidential election and let that voice choose a SC justice that will affect a generation of people.

I can't think of a more giant and appropriate fuck you to Republicans than President Hillary Clinton nominating President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court on January 22nd, 2017...

[vertical_doug]

William Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower a month before the election as a recess appointment and then officially nominated and confirmed afterwards. Eisenhower's appointments (5) are interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwig...urt_candidates

Is 5 appointments the most made by one President? Or did FDR make more?

President Washington because the original bench was formed under his administration - 10 confirmed, 2 declined, 1 withdraw and 1 rejected,
FDR - 9
Taft - 6
Jackson 6

The interesting one is President Tyler - 7 nominated with all withdrawing, rejected or postponed. He did not get a confirmation until his 8th candidate 13 month later. This is the scary precedent, so have we regressed all the way back to 1844 in a spoils system.

[Dallas Tex]

If we're not going by a textbook definition of lame duck then wouldn't he be considered a lame duck if he can't get anything done? Congress "decides" whether or not he is lame duck in regards to the justice nomination. Just because this situation doesn't have much precedent doesn't mean the current pres should just roll over, and he won't. It's more troubling (but not surprising) to me that a few minutes after the death went public, conservatives are grandstanding that the president shouldn't fulfill the duties and obligations of the office to which he was elected and swore an oath.

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.

[vertical_doug]

the world would be a better place if the Democrats had told GHWBush** that he didn't have the right to nominate Clarence Thomas. But it's the rankest sort of partisan nonsense to say that Obama shouldn't get to nominate Scalia's replacement.

** talk about your lame ducks

You have to take in context of 1991 with Clarence Thomas. This was only 4 years after the nastiness of the Robert Bork confirmation hearings and rejection. The term getting borked was still in the lexicon at the time. Even though Anita Hill made serious claims against Justice Thomas, they wrote it off as trying to bork Thomas. The republicans were not going to allow another borking.

Neither party is ever innocent.

[SteveP]

QUOTE=Daltex;759370]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[EricKeller]

the idea that Bork was "borked" is also right wing partisan nonsense. He was not fit for the position, thank goodness the Dems had some spine for once. Really? The guy that didn't have the moral backbone to stand up to Nixon's Saturday night massacre was fit for dogcatcher? Please. Never mind his political ideology was so radical as to be un-American and even shocked the Republicans of the time.