Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Jamzmania]

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

sure they can.

but when president sanders nominates a flaming liberal and the democratically controlled senate confirms him....well that's a far worse outcome than this moderate justice, eh?

Indeed it would be, but that's the people's own fault in that case.

[Trumpostan]

I'm hoping for the Obama scenario. Let's see the 2017 GOP Senate minority try to block him

[Ashmoria]

sure they can.

but when president sanders nominates a flaming liberal and the democratically controlled senate confirms him....well that's a far worse outcome than this moderate justice, eh?

Indeed it would be, but that's the people's own fault in that case.

or pleasure.

but it would reflect very badly on mitch McConnell and his cohorts.

[Ifreann]

And you are missing the incredibly important fact that if the people are to have their say then they must elect both a president and a Senate. Electing a whole new Senate will take until 2020.

I don't think you want the people to have their say at all. I think that's a lie that you're repeating because you want a Republican president to appoint a conservative judge and have them confirmed by a Republican senate, and you can't muster any legitimate argument why Obama should not make an appointment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

Then they should be able to elect the Senate that will be deciding whether or not to confirm the President's appointee.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

If you truly wish for the will of the people to be expressed in this judicial appointment, then you should want a new Senate elected as well as a new President. So it seems to me, at least. If you think that the people need to choose which President will be filling this vacancy but they do not need to choose which Senators will be confirming the President's decision, then please explain your reasoning to me.

[Zeinbrad]

sure they can.

but when president sanders nominates a flaming liberal and the democratically controlled senate confirms him....well that's a far worse outcome than this moderate justice, eh?

Indeed it would be, but that's the people's own fault in that case.

"It's never my fault"

[Jamzmania]

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

Then they should be able to elect the Senate that will be deciding whether or not to confirm the President's appointee.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

If you truly wish for the will of the people to be expressed in this judicial appointment, then you should want a new Senate elected as well as a new President. So it seems to me, at least. If you think that the people need to choose which President will be filling this vacancy but they do not need to choose which Senators will be confirming the President's decision, then please explain your reasoning to me.

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

[Fartsniffage]

Then they should be able to elect the Senate that will be deciding whether or not to confirm the President's appointee.


If you truly wish for the will of the people to be expressed in this judicial appointment, then you should want a new Senate elected as well as a new President. So it seems to me, at least. If you think that the people need to choose which President will be filling this vacancy but they do not need to choose which Senators will be confirming the President's decision, then please explain your reasoning to me.

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

What about the voters in the states of the other 66? Do they not get a say? Why not?

[Ifreann]

Then they should be able to elect the Senate that will be deciding whether or not to confirm the President's appointee.


If you truly wish for the will of the people to be expressed in this judicial appointment, then you should want a new Senate elected as well as a new President. So it seems to me, at least. If you think that the people need to choose which President will be filling this vacancy but they do not need to choose which Senators will be confirming the President's decision, then please explain your reasoning to me.

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

The Senate isn't a football game where whoever has the most points wins. Some senators do vote across party lines. Some are independents. Therefore the people must have the opportunity to re-elect or replace all the Senators.

[Jamzmania]

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

The Senate isn't a football game where whoever has the most points wins. Some senators do vote across party lines. Some are independents. Therefore the people must have the opportunity to re-elect or replace all the Senators.

If that's what you want, then you are entitled to your opinion. I, on the other hand, am advocating for a much easier and much more logical method to allow the people to decide.

[Fauxtopia]

It's going to cost them the senate

They've done plenty of things that would cost them the Senate. This may or may not be the breaking point.

It all depends on if McConnell et al can frame it correctly, and if the economy is still down by November. If the economy's still down, it's likely that a non-Trump GOP will take the White House and they'll hold the Senate. If not, say hello to President Clinton and Majority Leader Schumer.

[Ifreann]

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

What about the voters in the states of the other 66? Do they not get a say? Why not?

The states in green here won't be having a senate election until 2018. The purple get one this year and 2018, the teal this year and 2020. By January 2021 all states will have had an equal say, both in the composition of the senate and the presidency, and those elected will have taken office. Only then can Scalia be replaced.

[Ifreann]

The Senate isn't a football game where whoever has the most points wins. Some senators do vote across party lines. Some are independents. Therefore the people must have the opportunity to re-elect or replace all the Senators.

If that's what you want, then you are entitled to your opinion. I, on the other hand, am advocating for a much easier and much more logical method to allow the people to decide.

What I want is for Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to hold hearings to weigh the merits of that appointee. But according to you the people must have their say. So be it. The people will have had their say in January 2021.

[Trumpostan]

They've done plenty of things that would cost them the Senate. This may or may not be the breaking point.

It all depends on if McConnell et al can frame it correctly, and if the economy is still down by November. If the economy's still down, it's likely that a non-Trump GOP will take the White House and they'll hold the Senate. If not, say hello to President Clinton and Majority Leader Schumer.

Economy isn't down at all.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-growth- ... 1456493673
http://www.businessinsider.com/global-e ... 15-10?IR=T
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/11/e ... y-persists

I see also that the GOP keeps spreading the usual "job killing" lies about Obamacare.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... macare-be/
It must really rankle Republicans that not only did Obamacare not destroy jobs, it created them! Facts do not conform to GOP'her wishful thinking. And yes let's not beat around the bush here, the GOP is hoping for an economic collapse. And they are sad they don't control the WH like in 2005-2008 when they actually managed to crash the economy with tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.

Plus every poll on the subject so far has Americans favoring hearings 2-1 including independents. There is no way around that except to stick your head into the sand. People might finally have had enough of 7 years of non stop obstructionism by the unamerican Republican party.

[Greed and Death]

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

sure they can.

but when president sanders nominates a flaming liberal and the democratically controlled senate confirms him....well that's a far worse outcome than this moderate justice, eh?

Speaking of which the odds of the Democrats getting control of the Senate this election are slightly less than Sanders getting the nomination.

I will say the best chance the DNC has at the Senate is to nominate Sanders but both of these are unlikely and few people are going to vote on yet another GOP outrage in the senate this year where it counts.

[Greed and Death]

If that's what you want, then you are entitled to your opinion. I, on the other hand, am advocating for a much easier and much more logical method to allow the people to decide.

What I want is for Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to hold hearings to weigh the merits of that appointee. But according to you the people must have their say. So be it. The people will have had their say in January 2021.

If having an odd number is important on the court cant we just talk Ginsburg into retiring?

[Diopolis]

What I want is for Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to hold hearings to weigh the merits of that appointee. But according to you the people must have their say. So be it. The people will have had their say in January 2021.

If having an odd number is important on the court cant we just talk Ginsburg into retiring?

I say we just appoint every judge in the country, down to county judges in the middle of nowhere, and if it's not an odd number, they can fight til it is. We can pay-per-view it to cover the costs.

[Ifreann]

What I want is for Obama to make an appointment and the Senate to hold hearings to weigh the merits of that appointee. But according to you the people must have their say. So be it. The people will have had their say in January 2021.

If having an odd number is important on the court cant we just talk Ginsburg into retiring?

You can ask her if you'd like, but I call dibs on your stuff when she glares you to death.

[Diopolis]

If having an odd number is important on the court cant we just talk Ginsburg into retiring?

You can ask her if you'd like, but I call dibs on your stuff when she glares you to death.

Or use a mirror. Works on basilisks and sketchy eastern european witchdoctors.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Frankly, I don't know anything on Garland

[United Dependencies]

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

Remember, Obama is only entitled to 3/5ths of a Presidency.

oh man, that's terrible.

[Greed and Death]

Frankly, I don't know anything on Garland

Very few things to ascertain his judicial philosophy.

What we can infer thus far is he seems to be for curtailing the second amendment, and he approved of the citizens united ruling (he joined a DC circuit opinion expanding it).

The later may have been why he was not nominated in 2010.

[Trumpostan]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=2326

Ohio favors hearings, by a 3-2 margin. Ohio also has a GOP'her running for re-election. Margin 56-41 overall (58-40 independents/moderates).

What I would like to know is what make-believe polls have these GOP leaders seen that radically deviate from just about every other one? They can't be serious about wanting to jeopardize their Senate majority can they? On the other hand, I'd welcome it. Let them obstruct. This moderate choice is perfect, Obama is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise, and the GOP as 2 year olds throwing temper tantrums. Combined with a likely Trump candidacy, what could possibly go wrong for them?

2016 Senate elections:

(R) seeking re-election: AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, IL, IO, KS, KY, MO, NH, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, UT, WI
(R) open seat: FL, IN, LS
(D) seeking re-election: CO, CT, HI, NY, OR, VT, WA
(D) open seat: CA, MD, NV

Just a few points could make all the difference. Dems could well pick up IL, NH, NC, OH, PA, WI, FL and LS.
GOP obstructionism might well deliver the difference needed.

[Pope Joan]

Garland was approved by the majority of the Republicans in the Senate, when he joined the appellate court. Including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who said he was a fine jurist. So now the Republican National Committee says he is a flaming liberal leftist ideologue. It seems like the RNC is slapping their own Senators in the face.

[Greed and Death]

Then they should be able to elect the Senate that will be deciding whether or not to confirm the President's appointee.


If you truly wish for the will of the people to be expressed in this judicial appointment, then you should want a new Senate elected as well as a new President. So it seems to me, at least. If you think that the people need to choose which President will be filling this vacancy but they do not need to choose which Senators will be confirming the President's decision, then please explain your reasoning to me.

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

All but 2 are in safe states for the GOP.

Also Reid's retirement puts a Democratic seat up to chance.

The DNC needs to win the 2 they might win pull 2 upsets and defend Reid's former seat. The odds are not favorable for them to retake the Senate.

[Greed and Death]

Garland was approved by the majority of the Republicans in the Senate, when he joined the appellate court. Including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who said he was a fine jurist. So now the Republican National Committee says he is a flaming liberal leftist ideologue. It seems like the RNC is slapping their own Senators in the face.

The scrutiny for a circuit court judge and supreme court justice are different, remember when the Democrats changed the rules to only allow filibuster for Scotus nominees?