Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[AiliailiA]

While I doubt Obama will nominate a red-blooded conservative, I also doubt he'll nominate a very liberal candidate.

Sotomayor replaced Souter, and Kagan replaced Stevens. Liberal justices replacing liberal justices. Of course right wingers don't like either of those new justices, but they really have nothing to complain about because Souter and Stevens were both liberals. The balance of the court didn't change.

Neither of those should be used as precedent to support the paranoid ravings about Obama being a "dictator".

[AiliailiA]

I am sorry, who should a conservative want the seat filled with, Raoul castro?

They'd try to put Robert Bork in again if they could.

He's been dead a few years, but that shouldn't stop them. You can't get more Originalist than actually being dead.

[Gauthier]

They'd try to put Robert Bork in again if they could.

He's been dead a few years, but that shouldn't stop them. You can't get more Originalist than actually being dead.

Zombie Bork for Supreme Court Justice.

[Ethel mermania]

Who is the whole point. Thst said I was surprised how quickly they came out with it. With control of the senate it's fairly obvious he is not going to appoint someone that will pass muster with the senate.

That strategy is based on two assumptions: that a Republican wins the Presidency, and that Republicans keep control of the Senate. If neither of those happens Republicans will rue the day they turned down a moderate nominee* this year.

Though you know, there's still time for them to consider that later this year. When it's clearer who the party noms for President will be, and what their chances of winning are. Also who the President's nominee is.

Though it would be grossly hypocritical, they could even approve the President's nomination in the lame duck session ... if they lose the Senate majority and/or Presidential race.

*next post

Which is why I think he should appoint Maryanne_Trump_Barry .

Donald Trump thinks she would be a bad choice. Therefore, she's probably a good choice

She was always smarter than him.

[Neu California]

Off topic, but did you know that there's a FantasySCOTUS betting website?

More on topic, FiveTirtyEight has compiled a list of cases that Scalia's death will likely change the outcome of, for those curious

[Myrensis]

Who is the whole point. Thst said I was surprised how quickly they came out with it. With control of the senate it's fairly obvious he is not going to appoint someone that will pass muster with the senate.

That strategy is based on two assumptions: that a Republican wins the Presidency, and that Republicans keep control of the Senate. If neither of those happens Republicans will rue the day they turned down a moderate nominee* this year.

Though you know, there's still time for them to consider that later this year. When it's clearer who the party noms for President will be, and what their chances of winning are. Also who the President's nominee is.

Though it would be grossly hypocritical, they could even approve the President's nomination in the lame duck session ... if they lose the Senate majority and/or Presidential race.

I think that's rather the point. If they push it back there is at least a chance that a Republican President with a Republican Senate will be able to put a solid conservative on the bench.

Which is a fair point and good politics...except again that this current crop of Republicans thinks 'subtlety' is a 4 letter word and loudly and publicly trumpeted their purely self-serving partisan decision to fight to keep a Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year, thus giving the Democrats ammunition to undermine them in the actual election they need to win in order to achieve their goal.

They really just can't help themselves. Even if it involves shooting themselves in the foot a year from now, or 5 minutes from now, they just can't pass up the opportunity to publicly spite Obama right now.

[Ashmoria]

While I doubt Obama will nominate a red-blooded conservative, I also doubt he'll nominate a very liberal candidate.

Sotomayor replaced Souter, and Kagan replaced Stevens. Liberal justices replacing liberal justices. Of course right wingers don't like either of those new justices, but they really have nothing to complain about because Souter and Stevens were both liberals. The balance of the court didn't change.

Neither of those should be used as precedent to support the paranoid ravings about Obama being a "dictator".

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

[Myrensis]

While I doubt Obama will nominate a red-blooded conservative, I also doubt he'll nominate a very liberal candidate.

Sotomayor replaced Souter, and Kagan replaced Stevens. Liberal justices replacing liberal justices. Of course right wingers don't like either of those new justices, but they really have nothing to complain about because Souter and Stevens were both liberals. The balance of the court didn't change.

Neither of those should be used as precedent to support the paranoid ravings about Obama being a "dictator".

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

In that event, particularly if a Democrat wins the Presidency and we retake the Senate, I expect Obama would immediately withdraw his nominee and issue a statement agreeing with the Republicans that we should indeed honor the voice of the American people and let President Clinton or Sanders fill the vacancy.

It's another risk for the GOP with this tactic and their hamfisted implementation, if they lose the election it's going to be hard for them to fight whoever is nominated by Hillary or Sanders with their own argument constantly being thrown back in their faces, "The American people have spoken, why are you still whining and obstructing?".

[Ashmoria]

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

In that event, particularly if a Democrat wins the Presidency and we retake the Senate, I expect Obama would immediately withdraw his nominee and issue a statement agreeing with the Republicans that we should indeed honor the voice of the American people and let President Clinton or Sanders fill the vacancy.

It's another risk for the GOP with this tactic and their hamfisted implementation, if they lose the election it's going to be hard for them to fight whoever is nominated by Hillary or Sanders with their own argument constantly being thrown back in their faces, "The American people have spoken, why are you still whining and obstructing?".

this one thing is more important than anything else this or the next president will be able to do (if it is a democrat).

[AiliailiA]

While I doubt Obama will nominate a red-blooded conservative, I also doubt he'll nominate a very liberal candidate.

Sotomayor replaced Souter, and Kagan replaced Stevens. Liberal justices replacing liberal justices. Of course right wingers don't like either of those new justices, but they really have nothing to complain about because Souter and Stevens were both liberals. The balance of the court didn't change.

Neither of those should be used as precedent to support the paranoid ravings about Obama being a "dictator".

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

The choice would be between the President's nominee from before the elections, or nobody. In fact, the lame duck Senate might not even get that much choice: before they can even sit, the President could withdraw the nomination.

[Ashmoria]

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

The choice would be between the President's nominee from before the elections, or nobody. In fact, the lame duck Senate might not even get that much choice: before they can even sit, the President could withdraw the nomination.

he could.

or maybe he would like that bit of history in his column. one last addition to his legacy might be irresistible.

[Myrensis]

In that event, particularly if a Democrat wins the Presidency and we retake the Senate, I expect Obama would immediately withdraw his nominee and issue a statement agreeing with the Republicans that we should indeed honor the voice of the American people and let President Clinton or Sanders fill the vacancy.

It's another risk for the GOP with this tactic and their hamfisted implementation, if they lose the election it's going to be hard for them to fight whoever is nominated by Hillary or Sanders with their own argument constantly being thrown back in their faces, "The American people have spoken, why are you still whining and obstructing?".

this one thing is more important than anything else this or the next president will be able to do (if it is a democrat).

I expect whoever Obama nominates will be as blandly middle of the road centrist and inoffensive as possible.

From our end, that sort of Justice would still be a vast improvement over Scalia, and it limits the ability of the Republicans to make excuses about waa waa liberal activist.

On the Republican end it puts them in a position where if they block them they look like blatant obstructionists to all the moderates and undecides and take the risk of a far more liberal justice being appointed if a Democrat wins the election, but if they confirm them they go into an election with their own voting base in an uproar over them being filthy RINO traitors who sold out to Obama.

Scalias death literally couldn't have come at a worse time for the GOP.

[Big Jim P]

He's been dead a few years, but that shouldn't stop them. You can't get more Originalist than actually being dead.

Zombie Bork for Supreme Court Justice.

At least he wouldn't ever need replacing.

[Big Jim P]

In that event, particularly if a Democrat wins the Presidency and we retake the Senate, I expect Obama would immediately withdraw his nominee and issue a statement agreeing with the Republicans that we should indeed honor the voice of the American people and let President Clinton or Sanders fill the vacancy.

It's another risk for the GOP with this tactic and their hamfisted implementation, if they lose the election it's going to be hard for them to fight whoever is nominated by Hillary or Sanders with their own argument constantly being thrown back in their faces, "The American people have spoken, why are you still whining and obstructing?".

this one thing is more important than anything else this or the next president will be able to do (if it is a democrat).

The same could be said if we have a Republican President.

BTW, I LOVE how "wait for the next pres" is OK if they are a dem, but the end of the world if the next pres is a republican.

[Myrensis]

this one thing is more important than anything else this or the next president will be able to do (if it is a democrat).

The same could be said if we have a Republican President.

BTW, I LOVE how "wait for the next pres" is OK if they are a dem, but the end of the world if the next pres is a republican.

Uh, sorry, no. Republicans are the ones who decided that they're not going to allow Obama to appoint a new Justice even though he is still very much the sitting President with full Constitutional authority to do so.

We're just discussing the possible outcomes since we can't actually do much to prevent Republicans from throwing yet another temper tantrum.

[AiliailiA]

I'm thinking that it could happen that the senate rejects whoever the president nominates then, when the election is over and a democrat has won, will try to get a moderate confirmed in the lame duck session.

In that event, particularly if a Democrat wins the Presidency and we retake the Senate, I expect Obama would immediately withdraw his nominee and issue a statement agreeing with the Republicans that we should indeed honor the voice of the American people and let President Clinton or Sanders fill the vacancy.

Yes he could do that. It would probably be the only chance the next (Dem) President will get to change the balance of the court, as Roberts Thomas and Alito are relatively young. At least in the first term the only conservative likely to die is Kennedy (79 now) and he's the least conservative.

If the Dem wins the oval office but they DON'T take the Senate, on the other hand, it would be a nasty fight to leave to the next President. And maybe it matters whether that's Sanders or Clinton. Sanders would want it, Clinton wouldn't.

It's another risk for the GOP with this tactic and their hamfisted implementation, if they lose the election it's going to be hard for them to fight whoever is nominated by Hillary or Sanders with their own argument constantly being thrown back in their faces, "The American people have spoken, why are you still whining and obstructing?".

Yes sort of. I can think of counter-arguments though, particularly if they still hold the Senate.

[Big Jim P]

The same could be said if we have a Republican President.

BTW, I LOVE how "wait for the next pres" is OK if they are a dem, but the end of the world if the next pres is a republican.

Uh, sorry, no. Republicans are the ones who decided that they're not going to allow Obama to appoint a new Justice even though he is still very much the sitting President with full Constitutional authority to do so.

We're just discussing the possible outcomes since we can't actually do much to prevent Republicans from throwing yet another temper tantrum.

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

[AiliailiA]

Scalias death literally couldn't have come at a worse time for the GOP.

To the day. Pretty much every candidate disgraced themselves when they had to get up on stage together later the same day as Scalia was found dead. Competing with each other to be the most anti-Obama.

They'd all have looked better with even one more day. Day one, eulogize Scalia and nothing else. Day two, after getting advice from Republican Senators whose decision it actually is, make some considered comments about what kind of nominee might be acceptable. Day three, after some Democrats do it first, get in the trenches.

[AiliailiA]

Uh, sorry, no. Republicans are the ones who decided that they're not going to allow Obama to appoint a new Justice even though he is still very much the sitting President with full Constitutional authority to do so.

We're just discussing the possible outcomes since we can't actually do much to prevent Republicans from throwing yet another temper tantrum.

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

You don't think nine and a half months (or more) of SCOTUS being deadlocked on the most critical cases looks a bit like a shutdown?

[Ashmoria]

this one thing is more important than anything else this or the next president will be able to do (if it is a democrat).

I expect whoever Obama nominates will be as blandly middle of the road centrist and inoffensive as possible.

From our end, that sort of Justice would still be a vast improvement over Scalia, and it limits the ability of the Republicans to make excuses about waa waa liberal activist.

On the Republican end it puts them in a position where if they block them they look like blatant obstructionists to all the moderates and undecides and take the risk of a far more liberal justice being appointed if a Democrat wins the election, but if they confirm them they go into an election with their own voting base in an uproar over them being filthy RINO traitors who sold out to Obama.

Scalias death literally couldn't have come at a worse time for the GOP.

an inoffensive justice is still for abortion rights, voting rights, union rights, campaign finance reform, gun regulations, environmental issues, and whatever else I cant think of right now.

that is far more than a democratic president can get done with a republican house.

[54e]

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

You don't think nine and a half months (or more) of SCOTUS being deadlocked on the most critical cases looks a bit like a shutdown?

4-4 ties result in lower court decisions being upheld without precedent created

[Godular]

Uh, sorry, no. Republicans are the ones who decided that they're not going to allow Obama to appoint a new Justice even though he is still very much the sitting President with full Constitutional authority to do so.

We're just discussing the possible outcomes since we can't actually do much to prevent Republicans from throwing yet another temper tantrum.

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

I see it as hypocrisy from conservatives.

[Big Jim P]

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

You don't think nine and a half months (or more) of SCOTUS being deadlocked on the most critical cases looks a bit like a shutdown?

No, because it is not a shutdown.

[Big Jim P]

Another thing I find funny id the liberals/democrats already trying to spin this as if the Republicans refusing to confirm is going to shut down SCOTUS like their refusal to compromise on the budget shut down the government.

I see it as hypocrisy from conservatives.

Nice bit of character inversion there.

[Godular]

I see it as hypocrisy from conservatives.

Nice bit of character inversion there.

Not at all.