Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[AiliailiA]

If he appoints a clearly liberal justice they will just vote him no on the grounds his views on X are known.

I expect Obama will go with someone moderate just to make it that much more awkward for them, but since the GOP has so loudly announced that they have no intention of confirming anyone, even if he did nominate some raging liberal it would be hard for Republicans to criticize without it looking like empty and self-serving excuses for something they never intended to do anyway.

Um, some Republicans have said that. When Obama nominates someone and the Senate examines them, at least 51 of the 54 Republican Senators will have to hold to it.

As g&d mentioned, the committee chair could delay it, or Republicans could filibuster (raising the number of defectors required to 15, for cloture) but those are all worse options than holding the vote and rejecting the President's nominee.

[Greed and Death]

I expect Obama will go with someone moderate just to make it that much more awkward for them, but since the GOP has so loudly announced that they have no intention of confirming anyone, even if he did nominate some raging liberal it would be hard for Republicans to criticize without it looking like empty and self-serving excuses for something they never intended to do anyway.

Um, some Republicans have said that. When Obama nominates someone and the Senate examines them, at least 51 of the 54 Republican Senators will have to hold to it.

As g&d mentioned, the committee chair could delay it, or Republicans could filibuster (raising the number of defectors required to 15, for cloture) but those are all worse options than holding the vote and rejecting the President's nominee.

I do not think a filibuster is likely since they have a majority and fairly good party discipline. Cruz might do one for points with the conservatives during the primaries but I do not think it would stay in place long. The GOP if push comes to shove will vote and likely vote no.

Now if I chaired the judiciary committee I would, take a different approach. I would say this is a presidential election year. As such 1/3 of us are running for reelection and the other 2/3s of us are preparing are fulfilling their obligations to the party during presidential election season. We will attempt to review any nominee the President puts forward but we may have to table that nominee for more pressing concerns.

[Gauthier]

People can advocate for their interests. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

The simple fact is the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of gun rights. All a liberal SCOTUS can do is uphold regulations on the kinds of guns you can buy. Not being able to buy an AR-15 is an inconvenience. Not being able to marry is a travesty.

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

People should have the right to marry their AR-15. *nod*

[Benxboro]

he is not gay, he wants a AR-15.

People should have the right to marry their AR-15. *nod*

You see, it's different from marrying animals. GOD APPROVES IT!

[Greed and Death]

I am sorry you will lose abortion rights and SSM rights.
But my right to bear arms, be free from affirmative action in university admissions, and right to be free of union dues take more precedence than those.

IF you could only propose a candidate who would protect those rights I cherish perhaps your rights could be saved as well.

I'm curious how union dues and affirmative action constitute a violation of your rights on par with the ability to marry or the ability to control your own body.

Union dues is about freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Freedom of association seems to be pretty much on par with same sex marriage, and speech is pretty much the most important right we have.

Affirmative action the right to be treated equally regardless of my race. As I recall we fought a civil war over that, it seems seems a tad more important than abortion.

[Myrensis]

Um, some Republicans have said that. When Obama nominates someone and the Senate examines them, at least 51 of the 54 Republican Senators will have to hold to it.

As g&d mentioned, the committee chair could delay it, or Republicans could filibuster (raising the number of defectors required to 15, for cloture) but those are all worse options than holding the vote and rejecting the President's nominee.

I do not think a filibuster is likely since they have a majority and fairly good party discipline. Cruz might do one for points with the conservatives during the primaries but I do not think it would stay in place long. The GOP if push comes to shove will vote and likely vote no.

Now if I chaired the judiciary committee I would, take a different approach. I would say this is a presidential election year. As such 1/3 of us are running for reelection and the other 2/3s of us are preparing are fulfilling their obligations to the party during presidential election season. We will attempt to review any nominee the President puts forward but we may have to table that nominee for more pressing concerns.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone in Congress trying to play the "We're too busy!" Card is going to be openly laughed at even by their own party.

[Greed and Death]

I do not think a filibuster is likely since they have a majority and fairly good party discipline. Cruz might do one for points with the conservatives during the primaries but I do not think it would stay in place long. The GOP if push comes to shove will vote and likely vote no.

Now if I chaired the judiciary committee I would, take a different approach. I would say this is a presidential election year. As such 1/3 of us are running for reelection and the other 2/3s of us are preparing are fulfilling their obligations to the party during presidential election season. We will attempt to review any nominee the President puts forward but we may have to table that nominee for more pressing concerns.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone in Congress trying to play the "We're too busy!" Card is going to be openly laughed at even by their own party.

This is unexpected and requires a large amount of due diligence, to properly give the candidate a review takes time and effort. I am sure the Democratic party would love to force me to cancel my fund raising events to do this but that is not going to happen.

[Striton]

-

[Faustian Fantasies]

"Justice Wainwright" tweets:
Antonin Scalia requested cremation in his will, but millions of women will meet tomorrow to discuss if that's really best for his body.

ha ha, very funny such wit and humor in a post ...

I thought it was funny.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Think it's a shit storm now? Seeing the ages and health histories of these judges, I wouldn't be that surprised if Obama has to make a 2nd nomination....

[Greed and Death]

Think it's a shit storm now? Seeing the ages and health histories of these judges, I wouldn't be that surprised if Obama has to make a 2nd nomination....

As RBG is likely next, just borking everyone could result in a conservative majority again. Honestly there are too many rights at stake to do less.

[Zakuvia]

Think it's a shit storm now? Seeing the ages and health histories of these judges, I wouldn't be that surprised if Obama has to make a 2nd nomination....

As RBG is likely next, just borking everyone could result in a conservative majority again. Honestly there are too many rights at stake to do less.

Maybe Justice Thomas will finally say something...

[Greed and Death]

As RBG is likely next, just borking everyone could result in a conservative majority again. Honestly there are too many rights at stake to do less.

Maybe Justice Thomas will finally say something...

Given the experimental immortality syrup he has been given he will be the last member of the court. Too bad about the syrup diminishing the capacity for speech.

[Hurdegaryp]

People should have the right to marry their AR-15. *nod*

You see, it's different from marrying animals. GOD APPROVES IT!

Also it is not sodomy at all when it is the barrel of your beloved AR-15 that is doing the honours. Totally natural, in the evangelical definition of the word, too.

[The balkens]

You see, it's different from marrying animals. GOD APPROVES IT!

Also it is not sodomy at all when it is the barrel of your beloved AR-15 that is doing the honours. Totally natural, in the evangelical definition of the word, too.

I er...

really?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Also it is not sodomy at all when it is the barrel of your beloved AR-15 that is doing the honours. Totally natural, in the evangelical definition of the word, too.

I er...

really?

No of course not. Dicks should only go in vaginas. It's in the Bible.
Obvious sarcasm

[Northwest Slobovia]

Ah, good, we seem to be starting to get beyond the posturing stage of the crisis:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is leaving open the possibility of holding a hearing for President Barack Obama's choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, amid signs of uncertainty about how Republicans would treat a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he backs Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should make the nomination of a lifetime appointment. But Grassley didn't rule out holding confirmation hearings and a vote by his panel on an Obama selection.

"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision," Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. "In other words, take it a step at a time."

...

If we have more of these sudden outbreaks of reason, it's going to seriously interfere with my hopes for an all-popcorn diet until the the election.

[Trumpostan]

Sleepy Ben: GOP wouldn't wait to replace Scalia if GOP held White House (slowly but surely GOP'hers admit the truth.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/carson-republicans-wouldnt-wait-to-replace-scalia-if-we-held#.mbj0o40nB

Dr. Ben Carson says Republican presidential candidates wouldn’t be calling on deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement to be nominated by the next president if a member of their party currently held the White House.

Asked on WRNN 99.5 FM in South Carolina if his fellow candidates would say the same thing about waiting to nominate a new justice if there was a Republican president, Carson replied, “No, they wouldn’t.”

“But then again, recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there’s really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn’t be an ideologue also,” Carson said.

Carson said the Supreme Court has become a “political tool,” adding that it might be time to look at term limits for the justices.

“When we enacted that program, the average age of death was 47. And now it’s 80. You know, things have changed, so we need to change with them,” Carson said.

[MERIZoC]

“When we enacted that program, the average age of death was 47. And now it’s 80. You know, things have changed, so we need to change with them,” Carson said.

Idiot. One would think a doctor would know how to accurately measure life expectancy, but noooooo.

[Godular]

I'm curious how union dues and affirmative action constitute a violation of your rights on par with the ability to marry or the ability to control your own body.

Union dues is about freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Freedom of association seems to be pretty much on par with same sex marriage, and speech is pretty much the most important right we have.

You'll pardon me if I don't think that whether you belong to a union is on par with having the most fundamental legal considerations relevant to equal treatment. By the by, I'm curious as to whether paying union dues counters the differential in pay scales between those in unions and those who are not.

Affirmative action the right to be treated equally regardless of my race. As I recall we fought a civil war over that, it seems seems a tad more important than abortion.

No, it really doesn't. You see, the only thing necessary for abortion rights to win out is for people to mind their own goddamn business and not try to control the lives of others. When it comes to affirmative action, I see it as equality of opportunity. If a person gets into a school because they are a certain ethnicity or culture, it is not because of reverse-racism or whatever anybody would choose to call it, but because certain individuals need that kind of assistance. Treating people equally as you seem to see it would suggest that wheelchair ramps are an unnecessary frivolity because the schmucks for whom they exist should just use the stairs like everybody else.

Different cultures, different needs. So long as there is a discrepancy in how different groups are treated, there will be a need for such countermeasures. If one wishes to end affirmative action, stop championing those wretched voucher initiatives and related nonsense.

So you'll pardon me if I note that the things you purport to support simply ain't up there in regards to fundamental human rights and the right to control one's own body. As for arguing for what is of interest to yourself, I'm in favor of abortion rights yet also male, and in favor of same sex marriage even though I'm not homosexual. These things should be of no interest to me whatsoever, so why would I hold such views?

I guess treating others with respect just doesn't come naturally?

[Al-Portug]

“When we enacted that program, the average age of death was 47. And now it’s 80. You know, things have changed, so we need to change with them,” Carson said.

Idiot. One would think a doctor would know how to accurately measure life expectancy, but noooooo.

The average might have been 47, but that's just because of high infant mortality.

[Geilinor]

Different cultures, different needs. So long as there is a discrepancy in how different groups are treated, there will be a need for such countermeasures. If one wishes to end affirmative action, stop championing those wretched voucher initiatives and related nonsense.

So you'll pardon me if I note that the things you purport to support simply ain't up there in regards to fundamental human rights and the right to control one's own body. As for arguing for what is of interest to yourself, I'm in favor of abortion rights yet also male, and in favor of same sex marriage even though I'm not homosexual. These things should be of no interest to me whatsoever, so why would I hold such views?

I guess treating others with respect just doesn't come naturally?

If people are to be treated equally under the law, isn't treating them differently a contradiction?

[AiliailiA]

“When we enacted that program, the average age of death was 47. And now it’s 80. You know, things have changed, so we need to change with them,” Carson said.

Idiot. One would think a doctor would know how to accurately measure life expectancy, but noooooo.

Should be median not average: life expectancy at birth is the age half the cohort is expected to have died by.

But what stands out as most foolish to me is the proposition that term limiting judges would make their appointment less political.

Like, there's 9 judges. If their terms were nine years long, and staggered, we'd have a political fight between President and Senate once a year. Sometimes more than that, as justices retired for some reason or died before the end of their term. To keep the terms staggered there would have to be partial term appointments for those. And sometimes more than one or two in a year, if the imaginary "unwritten law" against appointments in a Presidential election year was made a written law.

If we went through this shit EVERY YEAR at a set date, who in their right mind would think the process would become less political?

[Geilinor]

Idiot. One would think a doctor would know how to accurately measure life expectancy, but noooooo.

Should be median not average: life expectancy at birth is the age half the cohort is expected to have died by.

I thought life expectancy was the mean but maybe I had that wrong.

[AiliailiA]

Idiot. One would think a doctor would know how to accurately measure life expectancy, but noooooo.

The average might have been 47, but that's just because of high infant mortality.

Well that too. The Constitution does not require any age qualification to be a SC judge (or any other qualification) but presumably they'd have to be an adult. So the correct starting age for a comparison of life expectancy would be either (a) the average age at appointment of SC judges historically, or (b) age of adulthood, 18. Life expectancy at birth is not relevant.