US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia found dead

[SWP's back]

Can't take joy in a man's death.

That's not true.

 

[Bigga]

So, I'm wrong in thinking the senate can obstruct 'legally' any presidential appointment to SCOTUS from the last year of the sitting president's tenure? I thought was the last 6 months only and anything before that was just loud discontentment?!

What's the point of the written part of the constitution where it's the president's sole choice to choose whom they want? I thought the senate must recognise the choice, is all. The irony of this is that even Scalia would recognise the constitution as it was written! Ha!

Anyway, I will have to find time to read on the clarity.

*edit*

As I wrote that last part, I had a quick search and found this...

http://www.thenation.com/article/yes-president-obama-can-still-nominate-a-supreme-court-justice/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-overshadowed-by-political-debate-back-home/

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Never heard of him

They're gonna deport yer! Back to the Ben Brierley!

 

[EalingBlue2]

So, I'm wrong in thinking the senate can obstruct 'legally' any presidential appointment to SCOTUS from the last year of the sitting president's tenure? I thought was the last 6 months only and anything before that was just loud discontentment?!

What's the point of the written part of the constitution where it's the president's sole choice to choose whom they want? I thought the senate must recognise the choice, is all. The irony of this is that even Scalia would recognise the constitution as it was written! Ha!

Anyway, I will have to find time to read on the clarity.

*edit*

As I wrote that last part, I had a quick search and found this...

http://www.thenation.com/article/yes-president-obama-can-still-nominate-a-supreme-court-justice/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-overshadowed-by-political-debate-back-home/

I think they can obstruct it forever if the majority of the senate backs the obstruction , equally constitutionally the court doesn't have to be 9. With mainly liberal circuit appeals courts an 8 person court is no bad thing for the dems anyway .

If however the dems win The senate once they have 50 as the VP can be a circuit breaker if they win presidency then they can stop a filibuster by going nuclear and driving it through but if they do that it sets a precedent which could be used against them if the republicans get their act together

 

[mat]

I think they can obstruct it forever if the majority of the senate backs the obstruction , equally constitutionally the court doesn't have to be 9. With mainly liberal circuit appeals courts an 8 person court is no bad thing for the dems anyway .

If however the dems win The senate once they have 50 as the VP can be a circuit breaker if they win presidency then they can stop a filibuster by going nuclear and driving it through but if they do that it sets a precedent which could be used against them if the republicans get their act together

A perfect storm for President Clinton.

Republicans delay. Clinton appoints Obama. Democrats get free reign for the start of her presidency.

 

[buckshot]

So, I'm wrong in thinking the senate can obstruct 'legally' any presidential appointment to SCOTUS from the last year of the sitting president's tenure? I thought was the last 6 months only and anything before that was just loud discontentment?!

What's the point of the written part of the constitution where it's the president's sole choice to choose whom they want? I thought the senate must recognise the choice, is all. The irony of this is that even Scalia would recognise the constitution as it was written! Ha!

Anyway, I will have to find time to read on the clarity.

*edit*

As I wrote that last part, I had a quick search and found this...

http://www.thenation.com/article/yes-president-obama-can-still-nominate-a-supreme-court-justice/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-overshadowed-by-political-debate-back-home/

It is very simple. The Republicans are upset at everything the president does and say it's because of his lack of respect for The Constitution. So therefore they will not stand for him obeying The Constitution and doing his job.

*Other things they're upset about: Minorities, Muslims, immigrants, gays, poor people, lack of advantages given to big businesses and banks, women wanting to make decisions for themselves, poor people wanting their children to have access to education, anybody but rich people wanting access to healthcare, people who believe racism still exists, Beyonce, people complaining about the government giving their kids lead poisoning, lack of wars, the existence of science and math, hungry children being given food and that people don't realize that "Freedom of Religion" only applies to real religions, not the fake ones that they don't practice.

 

[Bigga]

It is very simple. The Republicans are upset at everything the president does and say it's because of his lack of respect for The Constitution. So therefore they will not stand for him obeying The Constitution and doing his job.

*Other things they're upset about: Minorities, Muslims, immigrants, gays, poor people, lack of advantages given to big businesses and banks, women wanting to make decisions for themselves, poor people wanting their children to have access to education, anybody but rich people wanting access to healthcare, people who believe racism still exists, Beyonce, people complaining about the government giving their kids lead poisoning, lack of wars, the existence of science and math, hungry children being given food and that people don't realize that "Freedom of Religion" only applies to real religions, not the fake ones that they don't practice.

Brilliantly put!!

Would have been a thread closer if not for those pesky kids...

 

[Pokes28]

I'd rather not have an ideologue on either side. A justice like Kennedy that listens to the arguments and makes a decision based on law would be a nice change. Its sad that the SCOTUS only has one justice that is like that right now and he was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1988. I don't believe that Obama would ever consider anybody that isn't just like Sotomayor or Kagan. On any contentious issue, they are always in the left. Just like Thomas and Alito are always on the right. I don't mind Roberts as Chief Justice though I do personally disagree with his vote on Obamacare saying that it was a tax. The problem today is that it is very difficult to find justices that are on the center. Heck Stevens was a centrist when he was confirmed, but became the most liberal voting member of the court.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I'd rather not have an ideologue on either side. A justice like Kennedy that listens to the arguments and makes a decision based on law would be a nice change. Its sad that the SCOTUS only has one justice that is like that right now and he was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1988. I don't believe that Obama would ever consider anybody that isn't just like Sotomayor or Kagan. On any contentious issue, they are always in the left. Just like Thomas and Alito are always on the right. I don't mind Roberts as Chief Justice though I do personally disagree with his vote on Obamacare saying that it was a tax. The problem today is that it is very difficult to find justices that are on the center. Heck Stevens was a centrist when he was confirmed, but became the most liberal voting member of the court.

To be fair to Reagan he never intended that Kennedy was to be like this, they believed he was far more of an idealogue than he intended to be.

What is the centre now? The tea party has meant that an element of republicans have gone so far right they have pulled the centre to somewhere that isn't the centre! Reagan and bush far closer it Clinton than Cruz on most things.

 

[MaineRoad9]

Great man. Took the Constitution and his job very seriously. He became more political as the years went on, and I have no place for politics of any stripe on the Court. Whether he was always political (cloaking it in clever legal-speak), or was driven that way by the arrival of just intellectual giants as Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, I don't know. Given that he wrote the seminal opinion on flag burning in the US, I gather it was more the latter. My guess is that we'll see Mr. Obama nominate a faux-centrist, who will then vote with the Liberal Loons in perpetuity. This country is was probably toast already, but this surely won't help. As an aside, Justice Scalia's daughter once had sex in my bed. It was not with me, but it is a brush with fame just the same.