Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[New Jerzylvania]

Uh. Separation of powers, maybe? Jeez.

It's an interesting question, though. Does it actually say anywhere in the Constitution that the President can't also be on the Supreme Court?

I wasn't joking about that, hence no LOLs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatio ... nstitution

[Novus America]

Do you think they will lose Senate seats out of this, though?

Maybe one, if the electorate actually care enough.

They will. But those on the right will support it, those on the left oppose. Even moderates who are pro gun will support. Those more concerned as about gay rights oppose. The opinions will not change. Nobody will be swayed.

People give zero shits about abstact concepts like
"constitutional duty". They just want their side to win.

[Geilinor]

And mind you, Obama doesn't leave office until next January.

That's a long time to flatly refuse to do your constitutional duty.

The Republicans are going out on a limb here by announcing they will block any nominee made by Obama for the next eleven months.

It is also their Constitutional duty to NOT confirm a candidate if they have sufficient reason to do so. Congress is not there to merely rubber-stamp the Presidents choice, any more than the President is there to rubber-stamp Congressional decisions. Really, Congress refusing to confirm a candidate is no different from the POS vetoing a bill he disagrees with.

"We hate Obama!" is not a sufficient reason. They won't even vote on it.

[Wallenburg]

Maybe one, if the electorate actually care enough.

Or maybe (hopefully) the GOP will realize how childish their position is.

We're talking about the politicians who want to build a giant wall across our southern border, enslave women to non-sapient parasites, and can't decide whether we should level the Middle East or let Putin take control of everything.

[Northwest Slobovia]

FWIW, the LA Times is rerunning an article from November 2014 discussing the possibility of a Justice leaving office during the rest of Obama's term. Looks like somebody called it correctly:

Todd Gaziano, who heads the Washington office of Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm [...] predicts that if a seat becomes vacant in 2016 during the election campaign, the GOP-led Senate will attempt to delay a confirmation until after a new president takes office, hoping that person would be a Republican. "I can see the Republican majority running out the clock," he said.

The article has a few other interesting points, such as describing the possibility of Scalia's death as "[t]he nightmare scenario of some Republicans".

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I mean, if I was Obama, I'd nominate Kim Jong-un for shits and giggles. He's never going to nominate anybody Senate Republicans would confirm, because anyone acceptable would make Ronald Reagan look like Karl Marx.


And a while after that, it rolls right back around to being unpleasant.

Well, when anyone can point out where foreign opinions matter in a purely American internal affair, please do so.

You let them throw a bit of tea into the ocean, and look what happens.

[Ashmoria]

I admit that I'm not familiar with the process in every detail, but I can't imagine that there's a constitutional process for that.

He'll nominate a moderate, likely someone who is against Citizens United (which is unpopular across party lines), but has a more nuanced view on abortion.

He'll nominate an African American male.

Eric holder!

I'm thinking maybe he'll tap an Asian judge. there must be many qualified candidates.

[Kelinfort]

And mind you, Obama doesn't leave office until next January.

That's a long time to flatly refuse to do your constitutional duty.

The Republicans are going out on a limb here by announcing they will block any nominee made by Obama for the next eleven months.

It is also their Constitutional duty to NOT confirm a candidate if they have sufficient reason to do so. Congress is not there to merely rubber-stamp the Presidents choice, any more than the President is there to rubber-stamp Congressional decisions. Really, Congress refusing to confirm a candidate is no different from the POS vetoing a bill he disagrees with.

Your party's political funeral then.

[New Jerzylvania]

Uh. Separation of powers, maybe? Jeez.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit the president from also being a justice.

Perhaps you should reword that. It doesn't prevent a former President. Otherwise its a violation of the separation of powers and folks would be up in arms.

[Big Jim P]

It is also their Constitutional duty to NOT confirm a candidate if they have sufficient reason to do so. Congress is not there to merely rubber-stamp the Presidents choice, any more than the President is there to rubber-stamp Congressional decisions. Really, Congress refusing to confirm a candidate is no different from the POS vetoing a bill he disagrees with.

"We hate Obama!" is not a sufficient reason. They won't even vote on it.

Of course that is not sufficient reason. However, if Obama appoints someone whose politics they see as unsuitable, that IS sufficient reason, and pretty much why they are called on to confirm or deny confirmation of the appointee.

[Terminus Alpha]

Sri Srinivasan: The guy who everyone thinks is gonna be the next SC judge.

Looks like the SC may be getting some diversity on it.

[Geilinor]

"We hate Obama!" is not a sufficient reason. They won't even vote on it.

Of course that is not sufficient reason. However, if Obama appoints someone whose politics they see as unsuitable, that IS sufficient reason, and pretty much why they are called on to confirm or deny confirmation of the appointee.

Okay, that's acceptable. But to say that they won't even consider it and will leave a position open until January is unreasonable.

[New Jerzylvania]

"We hate Obama!" is not a sufficient reason. They won't even vote on it.

Of course that is not sufficient reason. However, if Obama appoints someone whose politics they see as unsuitable, that IS sufficient reason, and pretty much why they are called on to confirm or deny confirmation of the appointee.

Look back at all the appointments nominees that went down in flames to the Senate since 1900. It's 3, there 2 were Nixon's one by Hoover.
Not likely they can do it and get away without much political damage.

[Big Jim P]

It is also their Constitutional duty to NOT confirm a candidate if they have sufficient reason to do so. Congress is not there to merely rubber-stamp the Presidents choice, any more than the President is there to rubber-stamp Congressional decisions. Really, Congress refusing to confirm a candidate is no different from the POS vetoing a bill he disagrees with.

Your party's political funeral then.

Hardly my party, and hardly something to cause their downfall. In case you missed it, America is starting the rightward swing in its political cycle.

[Big Jim P]

Of course that is not sufficient reason. However, if Obama appoints someone whose politics they see as unsuitable, that IS sufficient reason, and pretty much why they are called on to confirm or deny confirmation of the appointee.

Look back at all the appointments that went down in flames since 1900. It's 2. Not likely they can do it and get away without much political damage.

The political damage will be somewhat mitigated by our current swing towards the right.

[Ashmoria]

it doesn't matter. the republican senate will not confirm anyone until a new president is sworn in.

....

then president Bernie sanders will nominate a communist and she will be confirmed.

A gay, Syrian-American, Muslim communist.

we can dream, eh?

[Kelinfort]

Your party's political funeral then.

Hardly my party, and hardly something to cause their downfall. In case you missed it, America is starting the rightward swing in its political cycle.

I'm just saying the attacks ads and campaign stump speeches write themselves.

[Tahar Joblis]

And mind you, Obama doesn't leave office until next January.

That's a long time to flatly refuse to do your constitutional duty.

The Republicans are going out on a limb here by announcing they will block any nominee made by Obama for the next eleven months.

It is also their Constitutional duty to NOT confirm a candidate if they have sufficient reason to do so. Congress is not there to merely rubber-stamp the Presidents choice, any more than the President is there to rubber-stamp Congressional decisions. Really, Congress refusing to confirm a candidate is no different from the POS vetoing a bill he disagrees with.

Congresscritters announcing a refusal to confirm a specific candidate is one thing; congresscritters refusing to confirm any candidate, however, without regard to who it might be, is another. This is the latter case.

[New Jerzylvania]

Your party's political funeral then.

Hardly my party, and hardly something to cause their downfall. In case you missed it, America is starting the rightward swing in its political cycle.

That's a biased assertion and not fact.

[Terminus Alpha]

Your party's political funeral then.

Hardly my party, and hardly something to cause their downfall. In case you missed it, America is starting the rightward swing in its political cycle.

How so? The Tea party's pretty much dead as the force it was in 2010, Gay Marriage is legal, and Obamacare is law. I don't see a right-ward swing happening.

[Big Jim P]

Of course that is not sufficient reason. However, if Obama appoints someone whose politics they see as unsuitable, that IS sufficient reason, and pretty much why they are called on to confirm or deny confirmation of the appointee.

Okay, that's acceptable. But to say that they won't even consider it and will leave a position open until January is unreasonable.

Agreed, and this is also likely to be the reason Obama appoints someone less leftist than he, his party and the common liberals might like.

[Ashmoria]

I think Democrats have a point though:

If anything, there's a bunch of court cases that will be heard this year. With 8 Justices it will be difficult.

And mind you, Obama doesn't leave office until next January.

That's a long time to flatly refuse to do your constitutional duty.

The Republicans are going out on a limb here by announcing they will block any nominee made by Obama for the next eleven months.

surely its what their supporters would want.

[Terminus Alpha]

Okay, that's acceptable. But to say that they won't even consider it and will leave a position open until January is unreasonable.

Agreed, and this is also likely to be the reason Obama appoints someone less leftist than he, his party and the common liberals might like.

This guy is prolly gonna get tapped.

[Ifreann]

He'll nominate an African American male.

Eric holder!

I'm thinking maybe he'll tap an Asian judge. there must be many qualified candidates.

George Takei!

---

Sri Srinivasan: The guy who everyone thinks is gonna be the next SC judge.

Looks like the SC may be getting some diversity on it.

I hope so, because every time I see that name I'll be reminded of Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Look back at all the appointments that went down in flames since 1900. It's 2. Not likely they can do it and get away without much political damage.

The political damage will be somewhat mitigated by our current swing towards the right.

I wouldn't count on this "swing to the right" to be a cause of mitigation to Senate literally not doing its job.