Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The death of Justice Scalia


Recommended Posts

The death of Justice Scalia, intellectual leader of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, opens up an opportunity for President Obama to change the political balance of the Court. The problem is that the Republican Senate will not confirm a liberal nominee. Obama has two choices: he can nominate a centrist in the (probably vain) hope that the Senate will accept the nomination, or he can nominate a liberal knowing the Senate will reject them, and then stall for the rest of the year in the hope that the Democrats win both the White House and the Senate in November and the next President can appoint a liberal. In the meantime, the Court now has four liberals, three conservatives and one independent. I think President Clinton should appoint (former president of the Harvard Law Review and former lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School) President Obama. He has said he's not interested, but perhaps the President can persuade him.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The death of Justice Scalia, intellectual leader of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, opens up an opportunity for President Obama to change the political balance of the Court. The problem is that the Republican Senate will not confirm a liberal nominee. Obama has two choices: he can nominate a centrist in the (probably vain) hope that the Senate will accept the nomination, or he can nominate a liberal knowing the Senate will reject them, and then stall for the rest of the year in the hope that the Democrats win both the White House and the Senate in November and the next President can appoint a liberal. In the meantime, the Court now has four liberals, three conservatives and one independent. I think President Clinton should appoint (former president of the Harvard Law Review and former lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School) President Obama. He has said he's not interested, but perhaps the President can persuade him.

if all of barack obama's words about unifying the country were ever really honest THEN he SHOULD appoint a centrist.

 

but he won't.

 

anymore than a republican incumbent in his shoes would.

 

he's perfectly free to name somebody NOW with the expectation that the individual will be confirmed far beyond this november's election.

 

but naming someone now would be both ignorant and insensitive and would be quite indicative of just what barack obama truly is.

 

a high-sounding pontificate who does not believe in living by his own words.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"what's the mission of this vessel, doctor?

 

to make contact with other civilizations and to demonstrate what our high-sounding words mean."

 

                                                                                                                            -capt. james t. kirk, 1st season ep 'the corbomite maneuver'...

 

 

then again obama sure ain't no james t. kirk

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but naming someone now would be both ignorant and insensitive and would be quite indicative of just what barack obama truly is.

 

 

Back in the day -- and I really mean Back in the Day -- when Supreme Court justices died, including those appointed by George Washington -- they were replaced very quickly.  Surely an originalist like Justice Scalia would be shocked if, in the event of his own death, the Constitutional requirement as exercised in the early days was ignored! It would be an insult to Scalia if President Obama did not appoint someone immediately, whether or not the Senate moved quickly to confirm. It would be the height of hypocrisy, though, if Scalia's admirers in the Senate did not respect the Constitution!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day -- and I really mean Back in the Day -- when Supreme Court justices died, including those appointed by George Washington -- they were replaced very quickly.  Surely an originalist like Justice Scalia would be shocked if, in the event of his own death, the Constitutional requirement as exercised in the early days was ignored! It would be an insult to Scalia if President Obama did not appoint someone immediately, whether or not the Senate moved quickly to confirm. It would be the height of hypocrisy, though, if Scalia's admirers in the Senate did not respect the Constitution!

sure! let obama appoint someone quickly...

 

 

but he should really spare us all, worshippers and dessenters alike, his standard BS about how he wants to unify the country.

 

if nothing else, that little crumb.

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day -- and I really mean Back in the Day -- when Supreme Court justices died, including those appointed by George Washington -- they were replaced very quickly.  Surely an originalist like Justice Scalia would be shocked if, in the event of his own death, the Constitutional requirement as exercised in the early days was ignored! It would be an insult to Scalia if President Obama did not appoint someone immediately, whether or not the Senate moved quickly to confirm. It would be the height of hypocrisy, though, if Scalia's admirers in the Senate did not respect the Constitution!

But you know that's exactly what will happen. The congressional Republicans have already announced that Obama should wait and let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement "out of respect."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know that's exactly what will happen. The congressional Republicans have already announced that Obama should wait and let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement "out of respect."

the 2 gop-controlled houses of congress will just bust their guts to confirm whomever before the november election.

 

what's the point?

 

rushing to name somebody will only inflame passions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sure! let obama appoint someone quickly...

 

 

but he should really spare us all, worshippers and dessenters alike, his standard BS about how he wants to unify the country.

 

if nothing else, that little crumb.

:D

 

The remarks of elected officials are one thing, whether the President, Congress, whoever. But the law is the law -- that they must respect. And if they didn't, it would make a mockery of the man who just died, whatever anyone thought about him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The remarks of elected officials are one thing, whether the President, Congress, whoever. But the law is the law -- that they must respect. And if they didn't, it would make a mockery of the man who just died, whatever anyone thought about him.

 

Is there something in the Constitution that requires the Senate to approve a President's selection in a timely manner?  

 

So what 'law' are you talking about?      Of course the GOP will play politics just like the Dems would do if in a similar situation.        

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there something in the Constitution that requires the Senate to approve a President's selection in a timely manner?  

 

So what 'law' are you talking about?      Of course the GOP will play politics just like the Dems would do if in a similar situation.

 

Of course the GOP will play politics. As we all know, the U.S. Constitution (I think in Article II) assigns the President the responsibility of appointing the Supreme Court justices. It goes further, stating that, if a vacancy occurs whilst Congress is in recess, the President can appoint someone until the recess is over. 

 

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

 

The latter is never done with the Court, but the Constitution indicates that it could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there something in the Constitution that requires the Senate to approve a President's selection in a timely manner?

 

So what 'law' are you talking about? Of course the GOP will play politics just like the Dems would do if in a similar situation.

 

There have been four Supreme Court justices confirmed in an election year in the last century. The last two were Scalia (confirmed by a Democratic Party majority senate) in Reagan's last year in office and Thomas confirmed in George HW Bush's last year in office (confirmed by a Democratic majority senate.)

 

ETA: it was Kennedy not Scalia confirmed in Reagan's last year. I think Scalia got in when Bork was rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa. I've been hoping hard for Scalia to die while Obama was still in the White House.

 

Scalia was a sickening human being.

 

I'm feeling more hopeful every day lately. It's almost like the universe is starting to care about America.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa. I've been hoping hard for Scalia to die while Obama was still in the White House.

 

Scalia was a sickening human being.

 

I'm feeling more hopeful every day lately. It's almost like the universe is starting to care about America.

can't say I would ever allow myself to find joy in the passing of any liberal scotus justice.

 

God causes it to rain upon the wicked as well as the just.

 

you talk about a man who was the father of nine children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can't say I would ever allow myself to find joy in the passing of any liberal scotus justice.

 

you talk about a man who was the father of nine children.

 

I'm finding a ton of joy in his death!

 

All we can do now is pray that he didn't create another 9 dooshes like himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding a ton of joy in his death!

 

All we can do now is pray that he didn't create another 9 dooshes like himself.

personally, I doan care myself not ever knowing the guy.

 

believing in god as I do I hope that the likes of ginsburg and kennedy would retire rather than kick off. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, I doan care myself not ever knowing the guy.

 

believing in god as I do I hope that the likes of ginsburg and kennedy would retire rather than kick off.

 

I hope "Justice" Thomas goes into a diabetic coma next week. That'd be sweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the coming weeks and months, we can expect to hear a rising and increasingly hysterical chorus of Republicans demanding that President Obama refrain from nominating Scalia’s successor. Indeed, if initial press reports are any indication, the trench warfare has already begun."

- Bill Blum

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama said, “Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities in due time.”

Raining on conservative obstruction dreams, Obama continued, “There will plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill it’s responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

The President reminded Republicans that this isn’t a game, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party.”

President Obama finished, “They’re about our democracy. They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned.”

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama said, “Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities in due time.”

Raining on conservative obstruction dreams, Obama continued, “There will plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill it’s responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

The President reminded Republicans that this isn’t a game, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party.”

President Obama finished, “They’re about our democracy. They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned.”

 

He is dreaming, the Senate will not vote on any nomination this year. The economy is crashing and he plays golf, no wonder his poll numbers are down to 20%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, there will never be another judge like Scalia on the Supreme Court ever again.

 

Scalia was also an unvarnished, intemperate and intolerant ideologue, railing against same-sex marriage, voting rights, Obamacare, affirmative action and other progressive causes. In recent years, often finding himself in dissent, he became unhinged at times, ridiculing his more moderate colleagues for engaging in what he called analytical “argle-bargle” and “interpretive jiggery pokery,” and for doling out legal benefits to allegedly undeserving litigants that he called “pure applesauce.”

- Bill Blum

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama said, “Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities in due time.”

Raining on conservative obstruction dreams, Obama continued, “There will plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill it’s responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

The President reminded Republicans that this isn’t a game, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party.”

President Obama finished, “They’re about our democracy. They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned.”

If Obama nominated Jesus Christ, the Republicans would not allow it to come to a vote.  There will be NO appointment until after the next President is sworn in.  If that President is a Democrat, it will be 2018 before we see the seat filled, if then.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course the GOP will play politics. As we all know, the U.S. Constitution (I think in Article II) assigns the President the responsibility of appointing the Supreme Court justices. It goes further, stating that, if a vacancy occurs whilst Congress is in recess, the President can appoint someone until the recess is over. 

 

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

 

The latter is never done with the Court, but the Constitution indicates that it could be.

Note also that there is NO requirement that a SCOTUS justice be an attorney, much less a judge.

I think Obabma should just go for it and nominate Bill Clinton or maybe even Bernie Sanders.

William Howard Taft serced as Chief Justice after he left office of President.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note also that there is NO requirement that a SCOTUS justice be an attorney, much less a judge.

I think Obabma should just go for it and nominate Bill Clinton or maybe even Bernie Sanders.

William Howard Taft serced as Chief Justice after he left office of President.

 

That's certainly possible, but given the climate, it's probably best to pick a judge who has already been confirmed by the Senate for the Court of Appeals. It would be more difficult for a senator to say someone is not qualified whom they have already approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's certainly possible, but given the climate, it's probably best to pick a judge who has already been confirmed by the Senate for the Court of Appeals. It would be more difficult for a senator to say someone is not qualified whom they have already approved.

If they voted, would say that judge has proven to not be qualified for the Supreme Court.  However, unlikely any nominee would make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If it did, one Republican senator would place a "hold" on it and that would be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...