Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Yeah it looks like Kennedy was nominated in Nov 87. Still, 2 months difference isn't enough to say "Obama shouldn't nominate anyone".

Chairman_Mao wrote:

to be fair, Reagan first nominated Robert Bork in July of 1987, which the Democratic Senate rejected. Kennedy was only nominated after that.

To also be fair, the Democratic Senate rejected Bork for very legitimate reasons: his open support for poll taxes to restrict minority voting, his statements that he wanted to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, his belief that the Constitution did not actually provide a right to privacy, and his role during the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate.

Republicans now are simply vowing to reject any candidate Obama nominates and their primary reason for doing so isn't the views or opinion of those candidates, it's the fact that they were nominated by Obama.

Is there like a 'super' candidate that appeals to both sides?

Like someone that is so respected + not obviously left or right?

Would be interesting to see that person nominated and the fallout.

jowner wrote:

Is there like a 'super' candidate that appeals to both sides?

Like someone that is so respected + not obviously left or right?

Would be interesting to see that person nominated and the fallout.

You'll have a better chance of finding a unicorn.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

to be fair, Reagan first nominated Robert Bork in July of 1987, which the Democratic Senate rejected. Kennedy was only nominated after that.

To also be fair, the Democratic Senate rejected Bork for very legitimate reasons: his open support for poll taxes to restrict minority voting, his statements that he wanted to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, his belief that the Constitution did not actually provide a right to privacy, and his role during the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate.

Republicans now are simply vowing to reject any candidate Obama nominates and their primary reason for doing so isn't the views or opinion of those candidates, it's the fact that they were nominated by Obama.

Of course Bork wasn't a good nominee and I agree the republicans are just being political obstructionists, but those are different arguments than pointing out Kennedy's appointment in 88 when the process had actually begun in the middle of 87.

And Renquist and Powell were both sworn in in Jan 72. The judges they were replaced retired in Sept '71.

Again we're talking a difference of a few months.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Of course Bork wasn't a good nominee and I agree the republicans are just being political obstructionists, but those are different arguments than pointing out Kennedy's appointment in 88 when the process had actually begun in the middle of 87.

Pointing out that the process was started in '87 isn't a valid argument against Obama, though.

Reagan nominated Bork on July 1, 1987 when he had just six months left on his term. That was enough time for Reagan to nominate three SCOTUS candidates and have confirmation hearings on two of them.

But now with Obama, who has another eleven months in office, there's suddenly not enough time for the Senate to properly consider a SCOTUS candidate.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
jowner wrote:

Is there like a 'super' candidate that appeals to both sides?

Like someone that is so respected + not obviously left or right?

Would be interesting to see that person nominated and the fallout.

You'll have a better chance of finding a unicorn.

And if you nominated that Unicorn, the GOP would just decry the obvious pandering to the gays.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
jowner wrote:

Is there like a 'super' candidate that appeals to both sides?

Like someone that is so respected + not obviously left or right?

Would be interesting to see that person nominated and the fallout.

You'll have a better chance of finding a unicorn.

And if you nominated that Unicorn, the GOP would just decry the obvious pandering to the gays.

I was trying to find a way to make a unicorn joke, but nothing was coming out.

Demosthenes wrote:

:lol: I was trying to find a way to make a unicorn joke, but nothing was coming out.

IMAGE(https://cannonballread5.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/00055kxb.gif?w=320&h=240)

OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Of course Bork wasn't a good nominee and I agree the republicans are just being political obstructionists, but those are different arguments than pointing out Kennedy's appointment in 88 when the process had actually begun in the middle of 87.

Pointing out that the process was started in '87 isn't a valid argument against Obama, though.

Reagan nominated Bork on July 1, 1987 when he had just six months left on his term. That was enough time for Reagan to nominate three SCOTUS candidates and have confirmation hearings on two of them.

But now with Obama, who has another eleven months in office, there's suddenly not enough time for the Senate to properly consider a SCOTUS candidate.

In fairness, we are talking about Reagan here. He could have crapped on a white baby and wiped his ass with the last original copy of the constitution and republicans would give him a pass.

Ego Man wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
karmajay wrote:

I really wonder how Obama is going to get another justice in the SC with this congress.

He's not. It will be up to Clinton 45

I would love to see Obama choose Bill Clinton for his nominee and President Hilary Clinton chose Obama to fill the next vacancy

Might cause an "interesting " reaction on the right.

Assuming it was somehow successful that interesting reaction would be DC literally being burned to the ground.

As far as I can tell the longest time from nomination to Senate vote was Bork at around 3 1/2 months. I'm sure the Republican Senate will blow that out of the water this year. I fully expect that either

1 - they'll delay starting hearings for a massive record breaking amount of time
2 - they'll stretch out hearings for a massive record breaking amount of time
3 - or if they want to be complete douchebags (not a stretch), they'll buck all precedents and hold a vote on day 1, voting the candidate down without even a hearing

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/GO8EwOL.jpg)

I don't think this analysis was posted before, but it posits that Obama has the upper hand in this situation. Basically, most of the Federal Appellate courts are liberal, and cases that came from them for the Supremes to decide would, if deadlocked in the Supreme Court, retain the ruling from the Appellate court.

Republicans have set up many decisions for the Supremes this year, on Congressional districting, abortion, environmental rules and other important issues, which now stand to revert to liberal conclusions if they stonewall on Obama's nominee. However, there are a number of judges approved bipartisanly by the Senate in the last decade, and if Obama goes for them, that at least opens the door for a decision that could favor Republicans in one or more of these cases.

So the thinking is that Republicans risk seeing their carefully constructed ideological campaign of change disrupted for years if they *don't* let Obama go forward with a reasonable nominee, while Obama probably feels he can take the hit on a few things (like abortion clinics essentially being outlawed in Texas) in order to win big on some other game-changers (redistricting and pollution controls).

Verrrry interesting.

Here is a good list of the candidates which Obama might consider for Scalia's seat.

Sri Srinavasan was mentioned above:

NPR wrote:

Sri Srinivasan: The 48-year-old D.C. Circuit Judge is considered a moderate. His unanimous confirmation to the federal appeals court for D.C. in 2013 was the first confirmation to that court in seven years — thanks to what NPR's Nina Totenberg called "huge bipartisan support in the legal community." Srinivasan, who clerked for former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has argued before the Supreme Court two dozen times (including arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act) and served in both the Bush and Obama administrations. During his nomination, senator and current Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz called him a longtime friend, and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called him "terrific." Srinivasan, who was born in India and grew up in Kansas, is the first-ever South Asian circuit court judge.

I think one important aspect was left off of Sri's resume. He was the point guard for Lawrence High School, feeding the ball to future Jayhawk legend, Danny Manning.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think one important aspect was left off of Sri's resume. He was the point guard for Lawrence High School, feeding the ball to future Jayhawk legend, Danny Manning.

Oh you:)

Jayhawker wrote:

The thing is, he was a sitting justice. He was still doing, or trying to do, damage. People are happy because the SCOTUS just got quite a bit better today. Had he been retired, people would feel less inclination to celebrate.

Not too sure about that - almost 30 years after she was ousted from power, people took to the streets to celebrate Thatcher's Death Memories run deep

SallyNasty wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I think one important aspect was left off of Sri's resume. He was the point guard for Lawrence High School, feeding the ball to future Jayhawk legend, Danny Manning.

Oh you:)

Hey now, that also means I watched a possible Supreme Court justice play basketball in my high school when The Lawrence Lions came to town and whooped up on the SMNW Cougars.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Of course Bork wasn't a good nominee and I agree the republicans are just being political obstructionists, but those are different arguments than pointing out Kennedy's appointment in 88 when the process had actually begun in the middle of 87.

Pointing out that the process was started in '87 isn't a valid argument against Obama, though.

Reagan nominated Bork on July 1, 1987 when he had just six months left on his term. That was enough time for Reagan to nominate three SCOTUS candidates and have confirmation hearings on two of them.

But now with Obama, who has another eleven months in office, there's suddenly not enough time for the Senate to properly consider a SCOTUS candidate.

Six months left in Reagan's term? Who was president in 1988?

Great article. Thank you for posting.

Seth wrote:

Great article. Thank you for posting.

+1. My stepfather is a big conservative and is my best friend. Civility is possible:)

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Six months left in Reagan's term? Who was president in 1988?

Whoops! You're right. Reagan was president until January 1989, not 1988.

But it still doesn't change the fact that there's more than enough time for Obama to nominate multiple candidate (if he has to) and for the Senate to hold confirmation hearings. And there's certainly nothing in the Constitution that says that the President's ability to nominate SCOTUS judges goes away in the final year of their term.

We're talking 18 months in Reagan's case in 88 and 15 months for 2 justices in Nixon's case in 72.

11 months for Obama is no different.

Sure it's different. Reagan and Nixon could do no wrong (and Nixon was framed!). Obama can do no right, because he's a socialist homosexual sympathizer who wants to take away your guns.

SallyNasty wrote:

My stepfather is a big conservative and is my best friend. Civility is possible:)

I feel it's reductive and inaccurate to render this "liberals celebrate conservative death," at least in my case, because his conservatism didn't matter to me nearly as much as his bigotry and willingness to abandon his supposed ethics and contort his "strict originalism" if it would further a partisan agenda, including enabling attempts to strip American citizens of the right to vote. Myself, I would try not to consider bigotry, torture, destruction of the foundational principle of the representative democracy, and rejection of the Constitution "Conservative ideals," even though many of them seem intent on making that so.

Yeah civility is all well and good, but Justice Ginsburg gets to know him on a personal level which is also well and good but hardly a luxury most of us get. It's mature to be civil but also mature to understand that saying "he did a lot of harm, I'm not about to celebrate him or act like he was a great man" isn't being uncivil.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."