The real loser here is Justice Thomas, without Scalia telling him how to rule he's going to be lost.
BTW, here are Scalia's thoughts on black students going to college from December 2015:
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well," Scalia said Wednesday during oral arguments in a case involving a race-conscious college admissions plan. The 79-year-old justice, speaking to a hushed courtroom, then referenced a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case. "One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas," he said, "they come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them."
Scalia said he wasn't "impressed" that the University of Texas may have fewer African Americans. "Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some -- you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less."
I'll wager $50 with anyone that Srinivasan gets the nominee. An Indian American( dots, not feathers)
He seems the big favourite, got approved for the circuit judiciary 97-0 but he has a history with democrats so can't see him getting approved easily unless Senators facing defeat in NH, Illinois, or doing what they thinks right as they don't care IE McCain etc side with Dems and spark civil war. Which is possible if someone like Cruz wins and noderate republicans find themselves closer to the DemsI'll wager $50 with anyone that Srinivasan gets the nominee. An Indian American( dots, not feathers)
Not going to bet as I am no expert but if I was him I'd wait till after Super Tuesday and see what the republican situation looks like and then wedge them.OK . . . I hemmed and hawed but I'll take your bet, but for $25. I think he has a decent chance but Loretta Lynch has a better one. Lynch should get the nomination just for taking credit for . . . errrr . . . "spearheading" the FIFA investigation! I think Obama has more to gain politically with her appointment, and it will be tougher for Republicans to block it based on her law-and-order credentials IMO.
There are the best part of a dozen senior judges being held up for the various appeals courts by the republicans using similar tactics.I liked Scalia though not necessarily for his votes. I liked listening to him explain his reasons for a decision. His writeups were the best of of the bunch and were written in such a way that non-legal people like myself could understand them.
Anybody that thinks Obama is going to get another nomination on this Supreme Court is not paying attention. Anybody that Obama puts forward must be confirmed by the Senate. The only way that isn't the case is if the Senate goes into recess. They are only in recess when they say they are in recess. So all the GOP has to do is simply not state is in recess and then they can delay or postpone the nominee.
Anybody that thinks that this is simply a Republican tactic or something new simply doesn't know history. In 1960, the Democrats passed a resolution preventing Eisenhower from getting a SCOTUS Judge confirmed during his last year in office via a recess appointment (which forces the hand for confirmation). You also had Chuck Shumer who stonewalled GW Bush appointments. And don't forget Reagan getting his nominee Robert Bork delayed to a point that Bork just gave up. This is the first time that it has happened the other way.
What this does is put extra pressure on the election. There isn't a chance in hell that Obama would get nominated. I could handle Lynch. I do believe that she's about the law first and personal opinion second which is very rare in today's world. I think she would be more of a moderate than a progressive. No matter what happens though, if we assume the next elected President is in for 8 years, that President will get to nominate at least 3 justices. The current age and health of the SCOTUS justices is frightening.
Ginsburg won't retire unless Hillary wins and they also get the senate and have replaces Scalia with a liberal. Same with the other older justices!There are the best part of a dozen senior judges being held up for the various appeals courts by the republicans using similar tactics.
I don't think Obama needs to rush he has 35- 40 (depending on the legislatures and rebel judges in the Illinois circuit) of states covered with very liberal appeals courts and if they send judgements up to a deadlocked Scotus their views will stand which will suit Obama fine.
He will also get to make the republicans look very instructive and also force the republicans to do the unedifying thing of a republican senator having to talk to an empty senate every day to keep out of receSs.
Meanwhile Obama picks a moderate or ethnic judge and wedges the republicans .unpopular or moderately popular Republican Senators behind in polls in moderate states such as New Hampshire, Illinois , Wisconsin, Ohio etc who look likely to lose then have to condemn a moderate judge and obstruct government which Obama could easily use to win the senate back especially if cru or trump wins.
The republicans could obstruct but the outcome could be much much worse for them as the democrats are greater than 50% to win back the senate and an angry senate majority backed by an election win and a republican senate leadership in minority who have declared the election must decide the SCOTUS would be 10x worse and could mean another circuit going liberal and a liberal court and Scotus for decades to come.
The downside Is nil for Obama - at worst he has a neutral Scotus, an election tool against the republicans and I am sure he wants the republicans to obstruct away so that they win the senate back and can then get all their circuit court judges in and a real liberal young justice . Obama has set them up to oppose and the republicans don't have the smarts to do anything different which is why they lost the last two presidential elections and will probably lose the next two