Whoa, Supreme Court Justice Scalia died today

Here is the chart in the article linked to above. Pretty interesting.

Looks like Scalia was mellowing a bit. Also looks like (in my opinion) Douglas (!) and Rehnquist are example of people I don't think should really be Justices.

In reply to aircooled:

Blackmun has a pretty big shift too. So did OJ Roberts (In the opposite direction).

The text of the article has a pretty good explanation of the shifts in ideology of some of the justices (it's not always what it looks like in a graph).

Toyman01 wrote:

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.

It's really very simple. I expect them to approve or veto based on the candidates put forth, not by who recommended said candidates.

That's all. Putting out an ultimatum without any information or knowledge is simple childish grandstanding.

Fletch1 wrote: 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?

Nope. I'm not taking sides, I'm expressing disappointment with the whole lot. At least there's a qualifier there.

"Democratic leaders have signaled that they may veto President Bush’s second pick to the Supreme Court if they regard the choice as “too conservative.”"

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I agree, Keith. It is foolish and premature to threaten blocking nominees when they haven't even been named.

Though I think it is pretty unlikely Mr. Obama will offer nominees the GOP can agree on (the 2 Justices he has appointed are 2 of the most liberal justices on the Court). It's still premature.

His previous appointments did not sway the balance of the Court. This one will.

In reply to aircooled:

It's pretty interesting that Rehnquist took a pretty consistent dive towards the median in that graph after he became chief justice. I wonder if that hadn't happened if he would have stayed more conservative during his term.

In reply to Nick (LUCAS) Comstock:

Like it or not, there is a serious point to keeping a balance of both ideologies in the SCOTUS as it prevents really stupid E36 M3 from happening. The balance is what keeps the whole thing afloat.

Those who try to skew the balance in their favor are a very very serious cause of concern.

On another note, good thing I stocked up on popcorn.

honestly, The president is not all the liberal, he just appears that way compared to the current crop of Republicans. If he appoints somebody, I expect that person will be rather moderate.. which of course will look like a flaming liberal to the people running for GOP nomination

Obama is a moderate Democrat. He makes some cool speaches, but he's remarkably pragmatic in actions. He's already appointed two justices and neither of them have been super controversial. Yes, a bunch of Republicans voted against them, but most of those Republicans vote against anything he puts forth whether they want it to pass or not just so they can be recorded as voting against him on everything.
I would bet a moderate candidate is put forward, and is approved by a fairly close vote. Neither party can really afford to wait and see who gets elected. Either of the front running dem candidates are pretty terrifying to the Republicans, and Trump is terrifying to almost everyone because nobody knows quite what he'll do.

mad_machine wrote: honestly, The president is not all the liberal

Facepalm.

mazdeuce wrote: Either of the front running dem candidates are pretty terrifying to the Republicans,

Yeah, so scary my democrat family said they're sitting this one out and my democrat boss may vote Republican. Yeah, Trump is scary too, although maybe most moderate of them all.

It would be tempting to select someone with the same ideologies. Let's be honest. 2016 is going to be a crazy year.

mazdeuce wrote: He's already appointed two justices and neither of them have been super controversial.

Neither were extremely controversial, but both were extremely liberal. Their voting record shows them to be 2 of the 3 most liberal justices, voting liberal 70% of the time. Here's an article with an image that captures the voting balance pretty succinctly:

Nuanced breakdown of the Supreme Court

The reason the controversy was limited was not because of the nominees, but because of who they replaced. Sotomayor replaced Souter (whose voting record was almost identical to her position, though she has since taken a turn to the left), and Kagan replaced John Paul Stevens, who was quite a bit more liberal than her. His nominees did not sway the balance of the court.

Scalia was one of the most conservative judges. If he is replaced with a justice with a similar position as Kagan or Sotomayor, the balance will be changed dramatically for decades.

You hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph. Which is why there will be a huge battle. It is also easy to predict how it will play out. We have the past 7 years as a guide.

Scalia got Kagan to go hunting a few times...sweet.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

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.

It's really very simple. I expect them to approve or veto based on the candidates put forth, not by who recommended said candidates. That's all. Putting out an ultimatum without any information or knowledge is simple childish grandstanding.

I would say it's more a statement of fact, and also probably what their constituents expect from their elected officials. Call it a shot across the bow. Many conservatives are pretty tired of the death by 1000 cuts. They are ready to stand their ground and not budge.

This justice will sway the balance of the court. I can't see the conservatives ever agreeing to anyone Obama tries to appoint. I wouldn't expect them to. Any true conservative that does, is lying about being conservative.

Every liberal intern has spent the weekend digging through the law books looking for a loop hole to force someone through. Every conservative intern spent the weekend digging through the law books looking for a way to block it.

It's going to be a pitched battle and I feel sorry for the poor bastard that gets the nod. He or she is going to be dragged through the personal, political and media sewer on the way to the bench. I have to wonder about the mental stability of anyone that's willing to put themselves and their family through that E36 M3 storm.

Here's to a lot of people on the hill being miserable for a a long time, while they try to hash this out.

It should be fun to watch, not that we will ever get the truth of it from the media.

In reply to Toyman01:

I disagree with your analysis.

Democratic strategists are probably realizing the best way for them to win is to not win. They can let the Republicans fight all they want, and block anything and everything possible. This will take them to the elections with strong evidence that Republicans stonewall everything. That should lead to Democratic wins at every level, including Congressional seats.

A Democratic Presidential win will then allow them to nominate whoever they want, and have majorities to support the decision at every level.

We have probably taken this too far. If so, my apologies to everyone.

I'm going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get my way!

( I'm outta here before the ban-hammer drops)

In reply to SVreX:

You are correct, but you are looking at this as a reasonable person. A person willing to compromise.

There are a lot of people, on both sides, that aren't willing to compromise under any circumstance.

The conservatives won't be swayed by their elected officials standing with their beliefs. They want the most conservative person. Public opinion be damned.

The liberals won't be upset if Obama nominates someone who is not moderate. They want the most liberal person. Public opinion be damned.

The only people who will care are the 10-20% in the middle and they aren't represented by anyone. They will be standing in the middle with their jaws on the floor, shaking their heads at the spectacle of it all.

If we didn't have a complicit media, it would be an interesting process. As it stands, all they want is ratings, so it's in their best interest to feed the flames rather than report the facts.

And you are right, this is probably pushing the limits, but the discourse has been reasonable and I don't think the powers that be will mind, as long as it remains reasonable. It probably is my turn to keep my keyboard silent for a while. I'll go work on SanFord and check back in a few hours.

I'm betting the next election cycle is going to be amazingly close as the middle lands on either side of the fence.

honestly, I would like somebody on the conservative side, not as far right as Scalia, but somebody right of centre. While this would still push the court somewhat left, I think a more balanced court that can look at things in a nuanced eye towards the constitution -and- how things are turning out as we advance towards the future, would be a good thing.

I want judges who vote on facts, not political affiliations

In reply to mad_machine:

I agree, but if I wanted Centrist judges, I'd have to throw out at least 4 of then, and perhaps 7.

Thanks, everyone, for the mostly considered and tactful discussion. However, let us now return to the stated policy of abstaining from political discussions (see "welcome to the party" sticky at the top of this forum for full explanation).

I won't be locking this, just deleting the account of the next person to post. Why? See previously referenced sticky.

Thank you.

Margie