1 2
pointofdeparture
pointofdeparture PowerDork
2/13/16 4:43 p.m.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

Cue up the conspiracy theories...though Supreme Court justices do have a tendency to kick the bucket before retiring. 79 ain't a bad run, really.

Fletch1
Fletch1 Dork
2/13/16 4:46 p.m.

Not good.

bludroptop
bludroptop UltraDork
2/13/16 4:47 p.m.
pointofdeparture wrote: 79 ain't a bad run, really.

Unless you are 78...

Chances of the senate confirming another justice before the general election?

Just about zero.

Let the political E36 M3storm begin.

Fletch1
Fletch1 Dork
2/13/16 4:49 p.m.

So everything will tie 4-4?

pointofdeparture
pointofdeparture PowerDork
2/13/16 4:50 p.m.
bludroptop wrote: Chances of the senate confirming another justice before the general election? Just about zero. Let the political E36 M3storm begin.

I had the same thought.

84FSP
84FSP HalfDork
2/13/16 5:14 p.m.

Is it bad that I care more for the Supreme Court positions than the current media circus called the presidential race?

Brian
Brian MegaDork
2/13/16 5:27 p.m.
pointofdeparture wrote:
bludroptop wrote: Chances of the senate confirming another justice before the general election? Just about zero. Let the political E36 M3storm begin.
I had the same thought.

Thirds.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
2/13/16 5:32 p.m.

Anyone have any idea of the logistics (without getting snippy of course).

I am suspicious some would love the selection process to go until after next January, but can this even be done? I mean, if you could do that, wouldn't every congress who's majority are contrary to the pres (they have to approve them right?) just delay until a (hopefully on their part) more similar minded person gets to make the choices?

Seems like a REALLY long time to delay.

pointofdeparture
pointofdeparture PowerDork
2/13/16 5:38 p.m.

Another flip side of the coin is that it's very possible for an appointment to backfire with a justice who consistently votes against perceived party lines. Justices David Souter and Earl Warren are great examples of that. The Senate also hasn't rejected a nominee since the Reagan era; it's pretty uncommon, though it could very well happen.

There's not a bad chance we'll see a successful appointment before the year is out, but it would do Obama well to choose somebody who's well-liked on both sides of the aisle.

EDIT: And now the GOP is already saying they'll block any nominee Obama puts forward. They better hope Bernie or Hillary doesn't take the election, then...as a friend of mine just posted on Facebook, "Welcome to the single biggest congressional battle of the Obama era."

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/minutes-after-scalias-death-right-wingers-seek-to-block-nominee-obama-hasnt-even-appointed-yet/

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
2/13/16 5:46 p.m.
pointofdeparture wrote: ... a justice who consistently votes against perceived party lines...

As I have noted before, I find this concept absurd, ridiculous and very much against the very concept of a judge, much less the most powerful (prestigious?) ones in the country. I am frankly discusted that it is something that clearly happens.

Even if I may not agree, I find it refreshing when they go against their "side". After all, they have no reason to be beholden to anyone, that is the entire point of the lifetime appointment.

bastomatic
bastomatic UltraDork
2/13/16 6:54 p.m.

He's not even cold and both sides of the aisle have already fired up their propaganda machines. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but still.

novaderrik
novaderrik UltimaDork
2/13/16 6:58 p.m.
Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/13/16 7:06 p.m.
pointofdeparture wrote: EDIT: And now the GOP is already saying they'll block any nominee Obama puts forward.

Sigh. What a bunch of children.

The0retical
The0retical Dork
2/13/16 7:35 p.m.

What a shame. Justice Scalia definitely had the most interesting and entertaining opinions I've read.

Nick (LUCAS) Comstock
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock UltimaDork
2/13/16 7:41 p.m.
aircooled wrote:
pointofdeparture wrote: ... a justice who consistently votes against perceived party lines...
As I have noted before, I find this concept absurd, ridiculous and very much against the very concept of a judge, much less the most powerful (prestigious?) ones in the country. I am frankly discusted that it is something that clearly happens. Even if I may not agree, I find it refreshing when they go against their "side". After all, they have no reason to be beholden to anyone, that is the entire point of the lifetime appointment.

Completely agree with this. Should be an impeachable offense to rule on something based on political party affiliation. Extremely hard to prove but disturbing at the deepest level.

Toyman01
Toyman01 GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/13/16 8:22 p.m.
Keith Tanner wrote:
pointofdeparture wrote: EDIT: And now the GOP is already saying they'll block any nominee Obama puts forward.
Sigh. What a bunch of children.

I'm curious what you expect them to do.

There is a fundamental difference of opinion between Obama and the GOP, when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution.

Why would they approve of anyone Obama recommends.

SVreX
SVreX MegaDork
2/13/16 8:25 p.m.

OK, but if we put aside the political party affiliation, there is a great deal of evidence that they vote in accordance with their perceived personal positions (liberal/ conservative, etc)

SVreX
SVreX MegaDork
2/13/16 8:30 p.m.

Hillary Clinton has already voiced a position that she would love to appoint Barack Obama as a Supreme Court judge. Stonewalling could backfire on the Republicans.

The longest Supreme Court Justice appointment took 125 days. President Obama has 342 days left in office. Buckle your seatbelts- could be a bumpy ride.

Toyman01
Toyman01 GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/13/16 8:31 p.m.

In reply to SVreX:

It should be a bumpy ride.

Fletch1
Fletch1 Dork
2/13/16 8:32 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01:

True. Kinda like 2005 when an unnamed pick was threatened:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/democrats_threaten_to_filibuster_unnamed_court_nominee/

Care to defend this Tanner?

kazoospec
kazoospec SuperDork
2/13/16 8:47 p.m.
bludroptop wrote:
pointofdeparture wrote: 79 ain't a bad run, really.
Unless you are 78... Chances of the senate confirming another justice before the general election? Just about zero. Let the political E36 M3storm begin.

Had a long response typed out, but in view of the "house rules" decided to pass. My biggest concern is that an appointment brawl is going to be seen by both side of the proverbial "isle" as beneficial to their goals. One side gets to make the appointment, the other gets to use the appointment to "motivate the base". We all lose.

Nick (LUCAS) Comstock
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock UltimaDork
2/13/16 8:58 p.m.
SVreX wrote: OK, but if we put aside the political party affiliation, there is a great deal of evidence that they vote in accordance with their perceived personal positions (liberal/ conservative, etc)

You and I can read the same piece of law and interpret it completely different. As I'm sure the supreme court justices do. But basing a ruling on anything other than your true interpretation of the law as it's written is a travesty. Of course personal bias skews a persons interpretations. And it would be extremely hard to prove motivations for a ruling, and Scalia may have been the poster child for this reaction, but it's still a blow to the process when/if it happens. Even if no one can prove that it happened.

The sad part to me is that people expect it to be that way, as if that is the correct way.

SVreX
SVreX MegaDork
2/13/16 9:13 p.m.

In reply to Nick (LUCAS) Comstock:

Travesty or not, still a fact.

History shows that a Justice's ideological preference on a simple conservative–liberal scale is sufficient to predict a large number of that justice's votes.

Ideological leanings of Supreme Court Justices

spitfirebill
spitfirebill PowerDork
2/13/16 9:23 p.m.

So you think somebody is going to get Borked??

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
2/13/16 9:36 p.m.
Toyman01 wrote: I'm curious what you expect them to do. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between Obama and the GOP, when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution. Why would they approve of anyone Obama recommends.

This was kind of my question. Why would any opposing controlled congress ever approve any candidate by an opposing president, yet is clearly happens. I am guessing it is because the excuse that the appointee is "not our kind" is not a viable reason to reject a candidate.

The selection process appears to be clearly outlined in the Constitution:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

Not sure there is much to argue there.

In a more extreme case (say the justice died in late December) it would certainly get pretty strange. I would guess the president would have to make a very conservative (no pun intended) selection as to not give the Senate any reason to reject them. But what if they did?

Perhaps you could argue the president at the time of selection still has the right to selection even if they are no longer president? Yikes! Maybe he has some built in back up picks before he leaves office?

1 2
Our Preferred Partners
pP9H4j7yG8tYSP343tDuPIpuOdvcsgSqXhXKhFx97j6htyLeUsTdGTDNTr4EOiUy