yes, or no, should the Senate approve a qualified candidate? Say, a moderate one? Or a liberal one?

 

If a Democrat wins the next Presidency, should the Senate just leave the spot vacant, then?

 

The nominee the president picks if he does pick one will be a factor.  keep in mind if the president makes the right play the politics of the situation will force the Republicans hand.  The next president probably gets two nominations so they can reverse this.  If he makes the wrong play and it gets blocked he's not going to get a send shot and the next president might not be a Democrat.  He's in a real tight spot but not an impossible spot we can get a nomination through quickly if we do it right.

When yo

 

 

 

I get it but at the same time you are saying it when your guy is in the White House, and don't want to even consider how these things have been handled by that same president when he was on the other side.  The Republicans have the power to do what they want and they might use it, if they don't it will become a 8-1 or 9-0 court before I die unless Democrats stop playing games too.

President Bush had two nominees.

 

On July 1, 2005, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. On July 19, Bush nominated John Roberts as her replacement.

 

On Sep 3rd, Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away. On Sep 5th, Bush made Roberts his nominee for Chief Justice. Roberts was confirmed Sep 29th.

 

On Oct 3rd, Bush nominated Harriet Miers as O'Connor's replacement. On October 27th, Miers withdrew from consideration, because of REPUBLICAN objections...she wasn't right wing enough.

 

On October 31st, Bush nominated Samuel Alito, confirmed on Jan 31st, 2006.

 

In so many words...your post is ... Invalid.

Still trying to figure out what "games" Democrats are playing.......

 

Still trying to figure out what "games" Democrats are playing.......

 

Still trying to figure out what "games" Democrats are playing.......

 

Like, are they into the Euro style board games? Or more video games? Or what, because that might effect how I vote.....

 

The nominee the president picks if he does pick one will be a factor.  keep in mind if the president makes the right play the politics of the situation will force the Republicans hand.  The next president probably gets two nominations so they can reverse this.  If he makes the wrong play and it gets blocked he's not going to get a send shot and the next president might not be a Democrat.  He's in a real tight spot but not an impossible spot we can get a nomination through quickly if we do it right.

 

I think this is right, but Obama could easily shift the tight spot on to the Republicans with a reasonable nomination.

 

A good, qualified, well-respected (in the legal community) candidate would really put pressure on the Republicans. There is a very good chance Clinton is the next President, which could be paired with a Democratic majority in the Senate. That doesn't seem like a scenario worth delying for, assuming a good candidate.

 

My naive prediction is Obama nominates one of the obvious candidates being floated (likely Srinivasan) and there is much huffing, puffing, gnashing of teeth, and then he is approved on a pretty slim margin with no filibuster.

Like, are they into the Euro style board games? Or more video games? Or what, because that might effect how I vote.....

Same game all politicians play...

 

 

Far more importantly fix the disrespectful thread title

Chitown explained herself and even compromised on the title. Let it go. Next comment about the thread title by anyone and they get a vacation from the site. Keep it on topic or don't post. Final warning for everyone.

You can't whine about what the other side MAY do when the side you're backing is actually doing it.

Ok, let me take a stab here. Republicans are saying that Obama shouldn't even bother submitting a nominee. Why? It is too close to the election. If he heeded their advise, we would conclude the current Supreme Court session and the October session with only eight justices. This would be the longest Supreme Court vacancy on record by a lot. If the Republicans want to oppose the nominee that will be put forward, it should be on the relative merits of the candidate. If they can (with a straight face) say that the nominee is unqualified or out of the mainstream, then vote him or her down.

 

Obama has every right to submit a nominee, in fact I believe you could say it is his duty. As for the prospect of a filibuster, if the rules say they can, they can do so at their peril. I have thought since Scalia's death was reported that Republicans would filibuster any nominee but they will have to take the heat for "refusing to do their constitutional duty" and "unprecedented partisanship", two charges leveled at Obama in the recent past.

fivethirtyeight, as usual, has awesome coverage on this. A tie on most of the contentious cases looks like it will go the "liberals'" way.

 

 

fivethirtyeight, as usual, has awesome coverage on this. A tie on most of the contentious cases looks like it will go the "liberals'" way.

Can they do a reversal of previous decisions, or do they have to be brought before them again?

 

I've always stated, at least in recent years, that the potential for a presidential is a high priority in how I vote for president. I think now more than ever this is going to be an understandable priority for a lot. It's quite the civics lesson we're all getting on the inter-relation of the three branches of government. However, I wish there were a way for the Court to be completely apolitical in their decision making. But there is no way to get around individual 'sense' in legal interpretation.

They can hear a case, call it a tie, and re-hear them, yes.......

 

If a case is tied, then it upholds the previous ruling, but does not create a precedent. Basically, "we reserve the right to hear this issue in another case" ruling.*

 

*I am no lawyer, but I think that is correct.

Edited February 15, 201610 yr by Mike Sixel

The longest time in history with an unfilled SCOTUS seat: 135 days ( 4.5 months -- from seat opens until nominee confirmed.)

Not sure what this number corresponds to, but Time Magazine put together a list with at least ten instances that were longer.

 

http://time.com/4224348/scalia-vacancy-supreme-court/

 

Chitown explained herself and even compromised on the title. Let it go. Next comment about the thread title by anyone and they get a vacation from the site. Keep it on topic or don't post. Final warning for everyone.

All expenses paid vacation? Can you send me to Aruba please?

 

I LOVE the thread title

 

All expenses paid vacation? Can you send me to Aruba please?

 

No, but you can buy me three beers.

 

Not sure what this number corresponds to, but Time Magazine put together a list with at least ten instances that were longer.

 

http://time.com/4224348/scalia-vacancy-supreme-court/

The Fortas/Blackmun interlude is because Nixon submitted Haynesworth and Carswell in between. Blackmun was nominated only a month before he was confirmed.

 

The Fortas nomination is probably the beginning of the modern era of contentiousness over Supreme Court nominations. It is entirely possible that Democrats were reacting to the Fortas case when they refused to confirm either of Nixon's nominees. From nomination to confirmation vote shouldn't take more than a few months regardless.

Not sure what this number corresponds to, but Time Magazine put together a list with at least ten instances that were longer.

 

http://time.com/4224348/scalia-vacancy-supreme-court/

I stand corrected.

I stand corrected.

I think the confusing numbers may be that it has never taken the senate longer than 125 to confirm or not once a nomination is made, but isn't about the whole process or the time elapsed from empty seat to filled seat. The Times had this story and chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Here's an accounting by SCOTUSblog of supreme court nominees in election years for those interested.

Chuck Grassley very clearly backtracked from the initial GOP rhetoric. The republicans could hurt themselves a lot with a destructive tactic. Grassley is pretty moderate, and came out against Cruz before the Iowa caucus saying "he is bad for Iowa." I'm a big Grassley fan, and as long as the nominee is qualified, and not a communist, they better have a hearing. If they don't... I guarantee the GOP loses almost every Senate seat they have up for election in swing states. Grassley is most likely fine, but I wouldn't put money on it if he leads a clear obstruction to the process. 

 

Plus, I don't ****ing get the GOP requesting Obama to not nominate someone. That is absolutely ludicrous. There is almost an entire year left. A whole year with a vacant seat in the Supreme Court is such a stupid idea, I can see Ted Cruz beating the horse to death over the next 10 months. 

 

Lastly, I'm happy to see this seat opened up. I absolutely think Scalia was a hindrance to American law. He also believed the constitution to be dead, which is not how it was intended to be. I just can't stomach his views. And you know what, if it didn't take death to remove a Supreme Court Justice, the reaction would be different. You can choose to look at Scalia as a hero for being a vocal leader in suppressing rights to certain groups of people, I choose to be thankful he is no longer in a position of power. Death is only the means to the end, nothing more. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork

 

In a piece for CNN, David Axelrod writes that Scalia actually tried to get Obama to nominate Elana Kagan. This was when Souter retired and Sotomayer got that spot, but obviously Kagan was later appointed.

 

Axelrod was taken aback, not so much that Scalia was pushing for a friend who happened to be a liberal, but more so that Scalia had advocated for anyone at all as that was not common for sitting judges.

 

Even if it wasn't a "yea" or nay" it would be nice to hear what the sitting judges have to think about the nominee(s) before the Republicans go nuclear on them.

To put to bed the conspiracy theory:

 

“Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes,” Eugene Scalia said on the conservative Laura Ingraham radio show. "We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him.” (emphasis mine)

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

 

To bed the conspiracy theory:

 

“Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes,” Eugene Scalia said on the conservative Laura Ingraham radio show. "We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him.” (emphasis mine)

It's easy for conspiracy theories to abound ... even I understand that ... the timing of it, the 'rural-ness' of the location, the lack of medical professionals available (because of the 'rural-ness' of the location); however ... and this is a big however ... he was NOT in good health, and that was emphasized quite a bit since his death as even I didn't truly realize how much other than he was terribly overweight, and he was 79 yrs old; on top of that, there was absolutely nothing amiss at the scene. If the family were at all surprised they could have ordered the autopsy, but they were obviously satisfied.

Not to be crass, but 79 year olds literally die all of the time. Especially ones who are:

1. Still working.

2. Working in a stressful job

3. Aren't healthy

 

Right or wrong this is why some people were nervous about McCain as a POTUS and why some are nervous about 74 year old Bernie as POTUS

 

Now this is going to sound wayyyyy unpopular, but if we are going to have a minimum age to run for POTUS (35-which is stupid) perhaps we should cap the age at which a POTUS can hold office? Maybe 80?

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by DaveW

Now this is going to sound wayyyyy unpopular, but if we are going to have a minimum age to run for POTUS (35-which is stupid) perhaps we should cap the age at which a POTUS can hold office? Maybe 80?

I'll go with dead as an age cap.

I'll go with dead as an age cap.

Didnt stop Reagan from a second term.

 

I'll go with dead as an age cap.

Fair enough, but once again, it opens us all up to a Ronald Regan situation again (at what point does someone's clear dementia prevent them from continuing the job? At what point does someone suggest it?) I mean, we are talking about the most important position int he entire USA, I am still unsure why a 34 year old wouldn't be able to handle the position anyways.... if you are old enough to get drafted and die for your country you should be old enough to run for any damn position you want. (or at the very least be able to drink beer legally)

 

 

If an "age cap" sounds wrong or unfair, then perhaps you should run for president in any of the years before you are 74.

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by DaveW

Fair enough, but once again, it opens us all up to a Ronald Regan situation again (at what point does someone's clear dementia prevent them from continuing the job? At what point does someone suggest it?) I mean, we are talking about the most important position int he entire USA, I am still unsure why a 34 year old wouldn't be able to handle the position anyways.... if you are old enough to get drafted and die for your country you should be old enough to run for any damn position you want. (or at the very least be able to drink beer legally)

 

 

If an "age cap" sounds wrong or unfair, then perhaps you should run for president in any of the years before you are 74.

Okay, so maybe I draw the line at Sid Hartman.

 

Fair enough, but once again, it opens us all up to a Ronald Regan situation again (at what point does someone's clear dementia prevent them from continuing the job? At what point does someone suggest it?) I mean, we are talking about the most important position int he entire USA, I am still unsure why a 34 year old wouldn't be able to handle the position anyways.... if you are old enough to get drafted and die for your country you should be old enough to run for any damn position you want. (or at the very least be able to drink beer legally)

 

 

If an "age cap" sounds wrong or unfair, then perhaps you should run for president in any of the years before you are 74.

Lol ... as far as I know you can drink beer legally before you can run for president. Also, I'm assuming you're aware of this.

 

Plus, you seem pretty sane still, and according to your profile, you're almost as old as Chief. Older than Sid Hartman, even.