Originally Posted By Mr X Wow. Quite a shocker today. I'm reeling from all the possibilities this situation opens up. A "Hung Senate" for a year, attempting to stonewall the president from appointing a replacement? A presidential campaign that hinges around what kind of judge gets picked? And will President Obama attempt to appoint a conservative, just to get it done? Wow.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Scalia's body wasn't even cold before Republican senators , including Rubio, Cruz, and McConnell , were saying that they wouldn't confirm anybody. Not that anyone's been nominated, of course. They have no idea who it's even going to be. It might even be a moderate that they could live with quite easily. But they've already decided that they won't confirm him or her. If that doesn't demonstrate their naked partisanship, I don't know what does.
Originally Posted By hopemax When we were discussing another subject, I was looking at the pre-Civil War presidents, and I noted that after the death of Chief Justice McKinley during Millard Fillmore's term he tried 4 times to replace him. The Senate either refused to take up the nomination or the candidates withdrew. Justice McKinley died July 19, 1852, and Fillmore remained in office until March 4, 1853. When Pierce became President the Senate finally acted. So there is precedent for the Senate to take no action. Although, that presents risks for the GOP as well. It might provide the motivation for both sides to press their "Get out and vote" campaigns at a time when I bet elements of both sides were hoping they could just sit this one out, chips fall where they may. Does the GOP want to be seen as so obstructionist? The docket becomes interesting as well. In a 4-4 split, the lower court ruling is upheld, so the conservative elements hoping to get some of the social issue laws overturned will have a bigger roadblock. And if Justice Kennedy wasn't a big enough swing vote already...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 We might not want to take the run-up-to-the-civil-war years as any sort of model. Just sayin'
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Sure, let them hold out. Then we will watch them crap their pants when Hillary nominates Obama for the position!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***when Hillary nominates Obama for the position!*** As much as I'd love for Obama to sit on the court, I think it would only work (without smacking of a demotion) if he were Chief Justice. As far as the right wing argument that they should stonewall until the next President is decided, what about a scant sixteen years ago when the Supreme Court was instrumental in deciding the election itself? How does another Bush V. Gore work with only 8 judges????
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Both McConnell and Grassley have been hypocritically defending the "we should wait" tactic even though both voted for Justice Kennedy in 1988 during Reagan's final year in office under a Dem controlled Senate. The precedence is there, so they should just suck it up. That being said, I'm guessing this might have more to do with getting a progressive-leaning 5-4 court before the upcoming election in which the teabagger monster THEY created has been pushing for a SCOTUS decision regarding "natural-born citizenship." SCOTUS has never ruled on what the founding fathers exactly meant by this little gem. And Cruz is definitely the poster child for the test case, since he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American-born mother who presumably renounced her US citizenship and voted in Canadian elections. Was Mama Cruz a Canadian when little Teddy was born? If so, then there's a pretty good chance that Teddy won't grow up to be POTUS, if that's how SCOTUS would rule. And with a newly anointed Obama nominee Justice, that might happen. Which totally blows the establishment GOP's chances of winning back White House control. Which is totally different than winning the White House with Trump. Which is precisely what they don't want. And which Teddy has their best chance of preventing. So if they allow Obama to replace Scalia with even a moderate, there's a fairly good chance that the "natural-born citizen" ruling for Cruz won't go in their favor.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Both McConnell and Grassley have been hypocritically defending the "we should wait" tactic even though both voted for Justice Kennedy in 1988 during Reagan's final year in office under a Dem controlled Senate. The precedence is there, so they should just suck it up*** The uber-specious argument they are trotting out is that he was NOMINATED in (very late) 1987.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Oh, yeah. Nominated in November 1987. Three stinkin' months earlier than Obama's soon-to-be-named nominee. Three months out of 48 months in a Presidential term. Makes all the difference, guys. *rolls eyes*
Originally Posted By Mr X Nevermind the fact that a STRICT READING OF THE CONSTITUTION reveals nothing in the way of special considerations due to election years. Ironic, that.
Originally Posted By ecdc Republicans are already back to invoking Robert Bork. Except...we know Robert Bork's name because he was actually nominated. He was debated, he was voted on in the judiciary committee and the full Senate and not confirmed. Presidents and politicians have tried to screw with the Supreme Court in a lot of ways over the years, but to my knowledge, the Senate simply announcing it would not consider any nominee from the current President is unprecedented.
Originally Posted By hopemax > Nevermind the fact that a STRICT READING OF THE CONSTITUTION reveals nothing in the way of special considerations due to election years. < Exactly. If one wants to really honor Scalia, they wouldn't want his replacement to delayed until the next President. Because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that's what should happen.
Originally Posted By ecdc Breaking: Strict constructionists honor the passing of strict constructionist by applying questionably broad Constitutional interpretation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I love McConnell's line, too, that "the voters should have a say." Newsflash: they had a say. They elected Obama twice. To 8 years in office, not seven. Republicans should be careful what they wish for, too. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Democrats take back the Senate this November, which most experts consider likely, because the "calendar" (i.e. the races up this year) is just as favorable for the D's this year as it was for the R's in 2014. That gives us two possibilities: a). A Dem. senate with a Dem. president, or b). A Dem. senate with a Rep. president. If it's the former, a President Sanders would almost certainly nominate someone farther to the left than Obama would. (Obama may surprise with his pick, but the names floating around now are not far-left; the leading name, Sri Srinivasan, is someone the Senate approved unanimously to the DC Circuit - usually considered the most important lower court, and sometimes "The Junior Supreme Court - just a couple of years ago. So suddenly, all these Senators who thought he was fine and dandy would have to hypocritically pretend he wasn't.) Even a President H. Clinton could pick someone farther left than Obama's likely "so moderate it should be embarrassing for you not to vote for him" pick. (Especially on abortion.) And with a Dem-controlled Senate, which is likely, could probably get him or her approved. Thus, they end up with a farther-left justice than Obama would have picked. The latter scenario (Rep. president/Dem. Senate) also could come back to bite them in the butt. After all, if the Republicans get nakedly partisan here and refuse to even vote on someone, what's to prevent a Democratic-controlled Senate from doing the same thing to a Trump or Cruz pick? Or at the least say "this one's a non-starter; pick someone more moderate or we'll do to you what you did to us." Thus Trump or Cruz end up with someone less far right than they might have wanted. McConnell's such a weasel that he probably really won't even let someone eminently qualified like Srinivasan (again, given the thumbs up to the second-most-important court by EVERY Republican a couple of years ago) come to a vote. And the Republicans will spin spin spin the reasoning like they're doing already, and their voters will buy it. But Democrats and independents should make them pay for it.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<As much as I'd love for Obama to sit on the court, I think it would only work (without smacking of a demotion) if he were Chief Justice.>> To most politicians, it may seem that way. But I think there are many politicians, those who appreciate the academic side of legal matters and policy-making, who might view it as more of a promotion. William Taft, for example, would have much preferred to have being admitted to the Court instead of the Presidency. Teddy Roosevelt and Taft’s wife had to convince him to accept the Republican presidential nomination. There is much certainly less publicity and overt power given the role of Supreme Court Justice, but the insulation from public opinion also allows for greater freedom to express legal ideals in areas both theoretical and practical matters---something which should appeal to scholars of the Constitution as it relates to subsequent legislation and our ever-evolving American society. This might not appeal to some former or aspiring presidential types. But I could certainly see several, Obama included, who might relish the opportunity to adjudicate and opine from the highest court in the nation.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Breaking: Strict constructionists honor the passing of strict constructionist by applying questionably broad Constitutional interpretation.>> What does "original intent" mean anyway? There were hundreds of people involved in the drafting and ratification process of the US Constitution. Whose opinion on the meaning behind a term or passage constitutes THE original intention of that element of that document?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***William Taft, for example, would have much preferred to have being admitted to the Court instead of the Presidency*** And he was, but again, as CHIEF Justice. There's no other way to go in with "full seniority, as it were. All other newbies begin as junior justice, speaks last around the table, takes notes for the group, and even has to get up and open the door — those sorts of initiation rituals are fine generally speaking, I guess, but would be pretty humiliating for a guy who was once the most powerful man on earth, and who personally appointed several of his "superiors" to the job. Then again, if a retired POTUS were to get the gig, perhaps they'd do away with that part of it. I dunno. Or maybe he'd be okay with all of it. But I just don't see someone moving from the top of one branch to a lesser role elsewhere.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>What does "original intent" mean anyway? There were hundreds of people involved in the drafting and ratification process of the US Constitution.<< That always gets me. The Founders would be shocked to hear the way we talk about the Constitutional Convention, as if they all got together, said a prayer, and the Constitution fell from the sky. It was a contentious fight that didn't end with ratification. The reverence we place in the Constitution was not shared by most of the people responsible for it. IIRC, Washington said the Constitution was kind of a mess but the best we could hope for. He seemed to just wish it'd survive at all.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo If you read autobiographies of any of the Justices, you'll find that they truly view themselves as equals. You’ll never see them any of them look upon the Chief Justice as “superior”, nor the view the “junior” Justice as inferior in any stretch of the imagination. The terms “Chief” and “junior” are virtually meaningless in the Chamber in any meaningful capacity. The only difference between the Chief Justice and Justice is the chief decides who writes the majority opinion. That’s pretty much it. Dissenting and alternative assenting opinions are generally held with similar esteem. And sure, the “junior” Justice gets the door. But that’s just customary. Junior Justices don’t view themselves as any more or less than any other Justice in the Chamber, and vice versa. It’s not a Frat house, or hierarchical executive structure at all. Neither do they have leaders in the manner such as Majority/Minority leaders or Speaker of the House. It’s hard to understand because most of us live in a world where virtually everything have some form of hierarchical structure. But there are few better examples of true egalitarianism than in the SCOTUS. And Taft never wanted to be President anyway. He’d rather be on the Supreme Court in any capacity. To him, the presidency was the “demotion”. Heck, any position that could be performed by George W. Bush can’t be all that high and mighty. Now, imagine him as a Justice. The IQ in the Chamber would easily drop by 1/10.
