Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: New Supreme Court Justice, 2016

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    5,517

    New Supreme Court Justice, 2016

    Now that Justice Scalia is dead (RIP etc), we are about to begin a dramatic, arduous process where Obama will appoint a new Supreme court justice, and the Republicans will block the approval for as long as they can.

    Who will Obama nominate!?

  2. #2
    fire up the quattro SMMY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,006
    I don't know, but the previous longest confirmation period for a SJC was 125 days from nomination to confirmation, for Brandeis. Obama still has 342 days left in office. I can't see how they can stall long enough to deny Obama's nominee. I heard that Obama is considering someone who has already been sort of vetted, so that they can get the nomination through in a reasonable time frame.

    Tonights GOP debate is going to be a shit show because of this. I'm getting out my popcorn

  3. #3
    ANUSTART Lathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [redacted]
    Posts
    3,645
    Hillary? Judge Reinhold?

    (I have no idea, but this should be fun.)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    5,517
    Does anybody know the maximum amount of time it allotted for when a justice is nominated to when they *have* to be confirmed? Is there even a maximum?

    Ted Cruz is on the Senate Judiciary Committee... but apparently the rest of the Republicans on the committee despise him, so maybe he won't have the pull he thinks he will?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Andyland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake View Post
    Does anybody know the maximum amount of time it allotted for when a justice is nominated to when they *have* to be confirmed? Is there even a maximum?

    Ted Cruz is on the Senate Judiciary Committee... but apparently the rest of the Republicans on the committee despise him, so maybe he won't have the pull he thinks he will?
    I don't believe there is a maximum.

  6. #6
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,396
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said in a statement that the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Scalia until after the election.

  7. #7
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9,019
    Is this one of the things that can be done with a recess appointment? Like if the Senate goes full douchebag, can Obama just be like "Fuck y'all. Here's Michelle. Suck it, bitches" when they're all off golfing in the Bahamas over Thanksgiving?

  8. #8
    trapped in the worst timeline just owls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Regina Phalange View Post
    Is this one of the things that can be done with a recess appointment? Like if the Senate goes full douchebag, can Obama just be like "Fuck y'all. Here's Michelle. Suck it, bitches" when they're all off golfing in the Bahamas over Thanksgiving?
    Only temporarily, it seems.

  9. #9
    thirst world problems Octopussy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,028
    Someone said he should appoint himself and make Joe the POTUS. Could you imagine???? Apparently, it can be done too, but I'll have to find the OP where they explained how. If it happened, I would never stop being amused.

  10. #10
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9,019
    So... what would you do? Would you pick someone fairly bland, maybe not super liberal, but liberal enough not to alienate your base... bland enough that they'd pass the senate because they're possibly just posturing about holding up confirmation? Like the most liberal person you can reasonably get past them just to have someone good in the seat with the least amount of fuss?

    Or would you think to yourself, these assholes aren't giving me anyone, so I'm going with the most qualified liberal person to mobilize the liberal base come November?

    Obama hasn't done a whole lot of throwing his weight around, but I'd really like him to go with option 2.

  11. #11
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9,019
    Something I read since I posted my question

    If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway

    A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place.
    Some of the high points: Cases that were heard but decisions not issued might have to be reheard. While the court backs up, the lower courts' rulings stay in place, and most of the cases are heard by judges appointed by Dems. That if there is blocking, decisions will be more liberal than having a liberal 9th Justice because of that. Roberts isn't likely to go out on a limb because he has a good sense of honor and respect for the office and isn't going to push his personal biases to get his politics ahead. While some cases are waiting to be reheard (or heard at all the first time because of the backlog), they can make changes to the points being argued so the opposing side's arguments become moot and the case and be decided in left's favor. Some cases are decided and won't be reheard and it's not always going to be a win for Dems, but it's not as bad as it seems when you first think about some GOP filibuster. And that's before you get into the political landmine field obstructing a SCJ nomination would be.

    Plus it's also pointed out that Obama most certainly knows all this even without his advisers, given how he used to teach law, practice law. It's perfectly up his alley and the GOP is already half imploding with the Tea Party doofuses and Trump supporters.

    I think this tweet sums up the absurdity of it all:

    Jim Vejvoda ‏@JimVejvoda Feb 13

    Scalia died on President's Day weekend. In Black History Month. In an election year. God's sense of humor is darker than Louis CK's.

  12. #12
    Administrator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,144
    I've really been enjoying watching heads explode. Congressional staffers swearing the GOP will block every nomination from Obama, Ted Cruz getting schooled by the moderator at last night's debate about his inaccurate statement regarding a SCOTUS confirmation in an election year, Michele Bachmann calling the guy "Anthony Scalia" on Twitter... it's all so delicious.

    I've read and read about this until my eyes hurt. It's my favorite thing to have happened in the past two election cycles because it totally throws a wrench into so many things.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,053
    Maybe he'll nominate Elizabeth Warren?

  14. #14
    fire up the quattro SMMY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,006
    I doubt he'd nominate any Senators, when the dems have a shot at taking back the senate. More strategically sensible would be to nominate someone who has already been approved by the Senate for one of the lower court seats, which makes them already vetted. When the Senate GOPs then do their usual obstruction gambit, then Clinton/Bernie/every dem. candidate would have every right to call them out for it, during this election. That would be especially damaging for republican Senators running for re-election in purple or blue states.

    ETA: No matter who the Dem. party nominee for POTUS is, this should be a driving force for getting Democrats out to vote. The chance to put a halt on the ever rightward shift of the Supreme court, doesn't come along often.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Puddles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario
    Posts
    638
    I read an interesting article recently that put me in mind of an essay a few months back that I think is really worth reading, as it has some bearing on this situation and on recent American politics in general. The first article is just about the Supreme Court and how this upcoming nomination battle is really uncharted political territory: https://newrepublic.com/article/1299...eme-court-know

    But in that article, the author's use of the phrase "constitutional hardball" and his reference, in the conclusion, to the ideological stratification of the two parties reminded me of an essay from Matt Yglesias (which I assume he was taking his cue from) back in October. The Yglesias piece makes for very interesting reading. It basically argues that presidential systems of government have, by and large, been unstable - with the notable exception of the United States and, for a while, Chile. After some caveats, he concludes that it's mainly because the one-time ideological overlap between Democrats and Republicans allowed for functional (if not necessarily always efficient) governing even in times of divided government. But as the two parties have gradually re-aligned according to more strictly liberal and conservative parties in recent decades, that stability is ending (or, perhaps more accurately, has already ended). And basically, sooner or later, something's gotta give.

    Whether you agree or not, it's certainly food for thought: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/...mocracy-doomed

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •