Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia dies: legal and political worlds react

[OrbitalDawn]

He was listening to Chuck Grassley. And so can probably cannot back it up



His reasoning? Nothing to do with the law or tradition or anything of the sort



One example of a Supreme Court justice being confirmed to the court in an election year happened in 1988.*

President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court on Nov.30, 1987. He was confirmed in a 97-0 vote on Feb. 3, 1988. Grassley was one of the 97 votes in favor of Kennedy. Democrats held the majority in the chamber.*

Another fun fact:

The last 2 SCOTUS nominees were confirmed within 13 months of elections, and they were GOP nominees confirmed by Democrat-controlled Senates.

Also, Scalia himself suggested a 60 day limit on nominations.

 

[Dave]

Also, Scalia himself suggested a 60 day limit on nominations.

What has the approval process for Vice President of the US got to do with SCOTUS nominations?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

What has the approval process for Vice President of the US got to do with SCOTUS nominations?

Merely the fact that he represented the view that highly important positions need to be filled sooner rather than later. A kind of irony.

 

[konfab]

The democrats are no different when it comes to blocking a judge.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Here is a 2006 source if anyone thinks this is just some right wing ramblings:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation

 

[Dave]

Merely the fact that he represented the view that highly important positions need to be filled sooner rather than later. A kind of irony.

Except the reasons advanced for not confirming the new VP are nothing to do with a new SCOTUS Justice, there is no line of succession involved as there is from POTUS to VPOTUS.

 

[BeerIsNotGood...]

Buzzfeed interesting choice

 

[RanzB]

The democrats are no different when it comes to blocking a judge.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Here is a 2006 source if anyone thinks this is just some right wing ramblings:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation

Lol. So blocking any nomination is the same as opposing a particular nomination? Haha.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

The democrats are no different when it comes to blocking a judge.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Here is a 2006 source if anyone thinks this is just some right wing ramblings:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation

No, they are no different.... but they are trying uphold an 80 year tradition, so it's fine.

Just kidding. The way that the US political system plods along, ensuring that systems are in place to ensure that as little progress is done as possible is actually quite demeaning. And that's why for a large part the population are so anti establishment

 

[konfab]

Lol. So blocking any nomination is the same as opposing a particular nomination? Haha.

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

 

[RanzB]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Yes but that's Schumer, not the entire party, similar to what we're seeing now. Not to mention, Schumer was never Senate Majority leader. Apart from the first in that list, the rest is suspect and can't be equated with what's happening now.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Except the reasons advanced for not confirming the new VP are nothing to do with a new SCOTUS Justice, there is no line of succession involved as there is from POTUS to VPOTUS.

I didn't say it did...

And sure, I agree on the line of succession point.

As I said, it's about important appointments being delayed or being filled. I found it somewhat ironic.

 

[Dave]

I didn't say it did...

I was just going by your statement

Also, Scalia himself suggested a 60 day limit on nominations.

This thread is about nominations to the SCOTUS, so your post seemed confusing as it didn't really have any relevance to the topic.

Not to worry, it's not important.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I was just going by your statement



This thread is about nominations to the SCOTUS, so your post seemed confusing as it didn't really have any relevance to the topic.

Not to worry, it's not important.

You're right, sorry. Should have worded that better.

 

[konfab]

Yes but that's Schumer, not the entire party, similar to what we're seeing now. Not to mention, Schumer was never Senate Majority leader. Apart from the first in that list, the rest is suspect and can't be equated with what's happening now.

By laying the battlegrounds, the GOP have put Obama into an awkward position. He could easily nominate a candidate who will swing the ideology dramatically, and will subsequently get blocked by the senate proving the GOP right about their claim. Or Obama could make the GOP look stupid and nominate a candidate who they might have actually approved of. But then they get what they want, and won't see an ideological shift.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

By laying the battlegrounds, the GOP have put Obama into an awkward position. He could easily nominate a candidate who will swing the ideology dramatically, and will subsequently get blocked by the senate proving the GOP right about their claim. Or Obama could make the GOP look stupid and nominate a candidate who they might have actually approved of. But then they get what they want, and won't see an ideological shift.

I don't think so. Obama will claim that he is just doing his job as president. So he is fulfilling his responsibility as required.

And is waiting for the GOP Senate to block it, so he can claim that they are not doing their job.

 

[konfab]

I don't think so. Obama will claim that he is just doing his job as president. So he is fulfilling his responsibility as required.

And is waiting for the GOP Senate to block it, so he can claim that they are not doing their job.

This isn't about Obama's rights as president. He is fully allowed to do it.

The issue is the candidate that he selects. If he selects a candidate they would have approved of, they look like a pack of children. If not, he would just confirm to GOP voters that their leaders were right all along.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

By laying the battlegrounds, the GOP have put Obama into an awkward position. He could easily nominate a candidate who will swing the ideology dramatically, and will subsequently get blocked by the senate proving the GOP right about their claim. Or Obama could make the GOP look stupid and nominate a candidate who they might have actually approved of. But then they get what they want, and won't see an ideological shift.

Depends how you look at it. If he does nominate someone within a reasonably short time then the elephants in the Senate will be in an awkward position, because they'll show their obstinacy is purely a political cudgel, flying in the face of judicial responsibility.

If he nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan, who was previously confirmed by a 97-0 vote in the Senate, they're going to be in the awkward position of having to explain why they're blocking him now.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

This isn't about Obama's rights as president. He is fully allowed to do it.

The issue is the candidate that he selects. If he selects a candidate they would have approved of, they look like a pack of children. If not, he would just confirm to GOP voters that their leaders were right all along.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.

This isn't about GOP voters or Democrat voters whose minds are not about to be changed any time soon.

This is all about independent voters, who will be watching this very closely.

 

[konfab]

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.

This isn't about GOP voters or Democrat voters whose minds are not about to be changed any time soon.

This is all about independent voters, who will be watching this very closely.

It would more impact on the individual senators as opposed to the party in general.

 

[RanzB]

By laying the battlegrounds, the GOP have put Obama into an awkward position. He could easily nominate a candidate who will swing the ideology dramatically, and will subsequently get blocked by the senate proving the GOP right about their claim. Or Obama could make the GOP look stupid and nominate a candidate who they might have actually approved of. But then they get what they want, and won't see an ideological shift.

I think the opposite is true. If they hadn't jumped the gun they could have used this strategy. But by confirming they'll refuse to appoint any nominee, it gives Obama massive leeway, as no matter who he nominates, Obama can point to their remarks immediately after Scalia's death as proof they wouldn't appoint anyone. So he can choose someone as liberal as he wants, since there's no repercussions and they were going to refuse to appoint that nominee anyway.

Anyway, my point was that that list you posted was nonsense.

It would more impact on the individual senators as opposed to the party in general.

If the party take their cue from this pack of children, voters will turn against them.There are a few Republicans who have decried it, but as a whole I can't think of many.