Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Gauthier]

What's really sad is that for some Republicans this is pretty accurate.

Shouldn't those specific Republicans actually be in favor of such a cataclysmic event, apocalyptic Christians as they are? Surely they will be taken away by the Rapture, given their immaculate souls.

They're scared that deep down they're not good enough for God to Beam Them Up to Heaven and they'll be left on the Earth with the rest of us sinners dealing with the demons and devils without a plasma rifle or a BFG.

[United Dependencies]

That means good by 4th amendment. (whether he is or not. I have no idea.)

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

I'm getting mixed information here.

Pro prosecution means you're more likely to find in favor of criminal prosecutors. This means that he is more likely to set precedents that expand the powers of peace officers to search and collect evidence (among other things).

[New Jerzylvania]

Haven't looked much into it yet but this nomination could be ok, not the end of civilization or anything.

Better take this man and pass him through bc HRC will make you repubs regret it if you don't. Meaning someone much more distasteful to y'all will be sent up in 2017 and you'll be fresh outta excuses.

[Ethel mermania]

That means good by 4th amendment. (whether he is or not. I have no idea.)

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

I'm getting mixed information here.

No you are not, Scalia was a strong proponent of the 4th amendment. A search had to be reasonable to him, if it wasn't he tossed it.

[Hurdegaryp]

Shouldn't those specific Republicans actually be in favor of such a cataclysmic event, apocalyptic Christians as they are? Surely they will be taken away by the Rapture, given their immaculate souls.

They're scared that deep down they're not good enough for God to Beam Them Up to Heaven and they'll be left on the Earth with the rest of us sinners dealing with the demons and devils without a plasma rifle or a BFG.

Get me a chainsaw and a super shotgun, now!

[Wallenburg]

I'm getting mixed information here.

No you are not, Scalia was a strong proponent of the 4th amendment. A search had to be reasonable to him, if it wasn't he tossed it.

Oh, hehe, I misread greed & death.

[Ethel mermania]

No you are not, Scalia was a strong proponent of the 4th amendment. A search had to be reasonable to him, if it wasn't he tossed it.

Oh, hehe, I misread greed & death.

Np, I wasn't sure if I was cthe one onfusing you.

[Kelinfort]

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.

Problem is, the GOP pulled the pin on a grenade and aren't letting go.

[New Jerzylvania]

From page 7 of this thread, dated February 13, 2016, hours after Scalia's death.

That's just it. Four liberal justices, one moderate, three conservative. The best that conservatives can hope for is a tie, which works out for them sometimes, but not all of the time.

Saying conservatives don't have a majority isn't the same as saying liberals have one when the number of justices is an even number.

It does make the June SCOTUS rulings most likely very disappointing for conservatives. Too bad, eh.

Obama should have a nomination ready to go by March 15th.

supreme Court comes back into session next week!

I must apologize for being 11 hours off in my prediction.

[Geilinor]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Scalia wasn't a great protector of most other rights.

He spent a long time as the only member of the court who wasn't a partisan shit or a sycophant to those in authority, it's no wonder you don't like him.

The eight justices currently on the court are partisan shits or sycophants?

[Ifreann]

And the Republicans have been indoctrinated with the belief that if Obama wins, portals to Hell will open up all over the world and demons and devils will overwhelm the Earth just like in Doom.

I want the lightning gun.

BFG9000 - When you absolutely, positively have to kill every demon in the room, accept no substitutes.

[Grinning Dragon]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

[Farnhamia]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

And all those numbers were set by Congress so yes, there is a mandate that the number be what Congress said it should be.

[Fartsniffage]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

So what do you do in the event of deadlock?

[Grinning Dragon]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

And all those numbers were set by Congress so yes, there is a mandate that the number be what Congress said it should be.

The number set by Congress is the MAX number of justices that can sit on the court, it doesn't say that there HAS to be (x)number.

So what do you do in the event of deadlock?

If a ruling from a lower court got kicked up to the Supreme Court the lower court ruling would stand in the case of a 4-4 ruling.

[Farnhamia]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

So what do you do in the event of deadlock?

The youngest members of each party in Congress slap each other until only one is left. That person then becomes the new Associate Justice and rules on the issue. Or nothing, whichever comes first.

[Fartsniffage]

If a ruling from a lower court got kicked up to the Supreme Court the lower court ruling would stand in the case of a 4-4 ruling.

What a great idea. So then the huge political issue of who gets to be on the supreme court would be repeated for every single nomination to the circuit appeals courts and state supreme courts. That would be a very productive use of everybody's time.....

[Farnhamia]

If a ruling from a lower court got kicked up to the Supreme Court the lower court ruling would stand in the case of a 4-4 ruling.

What a great idea. So then the huge political issue of who gets to be on the supreme court would be repeated for every single nomination to the circuit appeals courts and state supreme courts. That would be a very productive use of everybody's time.....

It would cut down on juuuudicial activism, though.

[Grinning Dragon]

If a ruling from a lower court got kicked up to the Supreme Court the lower court ruling would stand in the case of a 4-4 ruling.

What a great idea. So then the huge political issue of who gets to be on the supreme court would be repeated for every single nomination to the circuit appeals courts and state supreme courts. That would be a very productive use of everybody's time.....

Well it wouldn't really be all that unheard of in the history of the United States, that there was an even number of Justices.

Reading from http://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supre ... tices.html

...in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.

Back when there was an increase to 7 Justices..

In The Supreme Court in United States History, Charles Warren writes that the addition of a seventh justice was a function of an era when Supreme Court justices had to "ride circuit," serving on federal circuit courts. The need for an extra justice was "impelled by the increase of business and population in the Western Districts of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, and by the necessity of bringing into the Court some lawyer versed in the peculiar land laws of those States."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/eight-is- ... le/2001151

So, I dunno, in my opinion I guess the full on rush to fill a vacant spot isn't all that much of a pressing matter right now.

[Ifreann]

I don't think it would be too terrible if the seat were left vacant, as I don't think there is a mandate that the seat HAS to be filled. The court could operate just fine with just 8. The Supreme Court started out with just 6, then was increased to 7 in the early 1800s, then increased to 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863, then back down to 7 in 1866, then set to 9 in 1869 where it has remained.

So what do you do in the event of deadlock?

Thunderdome.

[Fartsniffage]

What a great idea. So then the huge political issue of who gets to be on the supreme court would be repeated for every single nomination to the circuit appeals courts and state supreme courts. That would be a very productive use of everybody's time.....

Well it wouldn't really be all that unheard of in the history of the United States, that there was an even number of Justices.

Reading from http://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supre ... tices.html

...in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.

Back when there was an increase to 7 Justices..

In The Supreme Court in United States History, Charles Warren writes that the addition of a seventh justice was a function of an era when Supreme Court justices had to "ride circuit," serving on federal circuit courts. The need for an extra justice was "impelled by the increase of business and population in the Western Districts of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, and by the necessity of bringing into the Court some lawyer versed in the peculiar land laws of those States."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/eight-is- ... le/2001151

So, I dunno, in my opinion I guess the full on rush to fill a vacant spot isn't all that much of a pressing matter right now.

Do you really think the political situation in the US today is comparable to the situation 160 years ago?

[Farnhamia]

So what do you do in the event of deadlock?

Thunderdome.

Ask a friend? Poll the audience?

[Fartsniffage]

Thunderdome.

Ask a friend? Poll the audience?

Take a 50:50. A computer randomly removes one of the petitioners.......with lazers.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well it wouldn't really be all that unheard of in the history of the United States, that there was an even number of Justices.

Reading from http://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supre ... tices.html


Back when there was an increase to 7 Justices..

http://www.weeklystandard.com/eight-is- ... le/2001151

So, I dunno, in my opinion I guess the full on rush to fill a vacant spot isn't all that much of a pressing matter right now.

Do you really think the political situation in the US today is comparable to the situation 160 years ago?

Of course not, and didn't say that it was, I am just saying the Court would be fine for a while with just 8 Justices. After all on average, how many cases does the Supreme Court hear, something like what 8, 10, a dozen?

[Ifreann]

Do you really think the political situation in the US today is comparable to the situation 160 years ago?

Of course not, and didn't say that it was, I am just saying the Court would be fine for a while with just 8 Justices. After all on average, how many cases does the Supreme Court hear, something like what 8, 10, a dozen?

100-150 of the >7,000 it is asked to hear.