Justice Scalia is Dead
- Thread starter fish82
- Start date
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Ooooh......a confirmation process right through the peak of an election cycle....this could get really interesting. Especially if an independent can point at crap by both parties. 
Piss poor timing, dude.
Rest in peace Justice Scalia. He was a giant among conservative justices one of the smartest and most articulate men to EVER be on the Supreme Court. He will be missed.
Given that we are now less then 9 months away from a presidential election I don't see how anyone president Obama nominates for the court can get approved. Mitch McConnell & Paul Ryan must be shaking in their little booties as they will now be under a microscope. ANY attempt to "work with" the POTUS in selecting Justice Scalia's replacement will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of "Republicans" and since Republicans control BOTH the Congress and Senate it should be easy for them to push picking a 9th justice off to after the next election. Anything less and kiss the Republican party GOODBYE!
Ooooh......a confirmation process right through the peak of an election cycle....this could get really interesting. Especially if an independent can point at crap by both parties.
If the Publican leadership were "smart" they would signal that they are pushing the process to after the upcoming election.
fish82
Well-known member
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
And leave such an important branch of government crippled, out of a desire to exert partisan influence ? It would be pretty transparent. There's no valid excuse to wait. Gonna be hard to share that "gridlock" burden with such obvious gamesmanship. No, I think that if Obama runs a "reasonable" nominee up the flagpole, they stand to lose big for stalling.
By the same token, if Obama reaches too far left, he gives a validation of sorts to stalling, and stands to lose the opportunity to turn the Court. It will be interesting to see which issues are favored in selecting a nominee.
Last edited:
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Hillary did it ! You know how murderous that bunch is......
What's your definition of a "reasonable" candidate to replace Justice Scalia? I don't see president Obama selecting anyone that would be remotely acceptable as a replacement for Scalia. If justice Ginsberg had passed away I would agree with you that a replacement Justice could and would be confirmed even this close to an election. The big difference is that replacing Ginsburg with an Obama nominee would NOT alter the ideological makeup of the court. Replacing Scalia has the potential to significantly alter the ideology of the court. This is to important to be left to a lame duck president in a deeply divided country. Waiting for the results of the November election would be the fairest way to settle this and I think most Americans would see it that way.
BTW, I would be making the exact same argument if in February, 2008 justice Ginsburg had passed away. I would have supported the notion that president Bush NOT nominate a replacement but instead should wait until after the election.
I also don't think this will bother Americans. The court can still make rulings with eight members and on the right, there would be an ugly revolt if McConnell allowed president Obama to select justice Scalia's replacement. An UGLY revolt as in the end of the Republican party.
I heard that and it's a wise move by McConnell. However as we on the right have often observed Mr. McConnell's positions are malleable and open to reinterpretation. Frankly, I don't trust McConnell to stick to this position though I hope I'm wrong here.
Termite2
Well-known member
It is really immaterial, in a 8 member SCOTUS, a 4-4 tie means the Appellate ruling stands and no judge that Obama submits will be approved by the senate, Bork payback.
Justice Scalia passing away has burdened the Obama administration with a HUGE headache. This makes president Obama's last year in office even more problematic.
BTW, I just saw a picture of Obama 2008 versus Obama 2016 and why anyone would want to be president is beyond me. The man looks like he's aged 40 years. It's striking.
Which is GOOD for those issues that would be decided by a single vote. In other cases where there is broad agreement among the justices the Peoples Business can be accomplished and we'll see some 5 - 3 & 6 - 2 rulings. I see that as a win/win!
ohiopup
Well-known member
That is true for every POTUS that served more than 1 term.
Hell it's likely true for all of us ~ look at your own photo when you were 8 years younger (especially if you are over 45)
:>---
S = ALT
This is a loser for the Republicans. Holding the highest court in the land hostage with political games will not appeal to moderate/swing voters. The media will certainly not treat them kindly. Then they'll lose to Hilary/Bernie anyway and be in the same spot except they'll have looked really dumb/corrupt/incompetent in the process.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
I promise my vote in the upcoming primary for the Republican party to the candidate that says we should NOT delay the appointment of a new supreme court justice.
I'm not saying that a nominee has to be confirmed, I just want our next President to be above the shameful party politics played by both sides.
I'm not saying that a nominee has to be confirmed, I just want our next President to be above the shameful party politics played by both sides.
A nomination before this executive office term ends will most certainly add to the divisive "shameful part politics" that are already at a feverish level.
fish82
Well-known member
I'm forced to agree. It's not a hill worth dying on. Unless Obie nominates a child molester or some such character, the POTUS should get his pick.
The GOP will pick the next 2 anyway, so the pendulum will just swing back.
So the Republicans are going to delay confirmation because they want to prevent division. Got it. :laugh:
Won't happen. They're too stupid to see the forest through the trees.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
There is no obligation to "replace" Antonin Scalia. The duty of the President and of the Senate is to fill a seat that is now vacant. Don't get that confused with your Christmas wish list. This might help you get up to speed-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
The next POTUS won't be sworn in for 11 months, chief. Is there a Senate recess coming up ?
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
King Mitch ? Why would such a thing be impossible ?
I realize that McConnell isn't running for a national office, so all he has to do is bring home the bacon at this point, but he can do the Republican candidate some damage here. There is almost a year remaining in Obama's term.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
That is the silliest spin I've ever read you put on anything - Trump pimping included :laugh:
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I see that you and I won't be agreeing again for another 6-8 months; you are absolutely correct here.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
It really is a bad spot for them. I get McConnell's current stance, but the only way it doesn't cost his party is if he backs off for a reasonable appointment.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
And what would be served by delaying an obviously necessary nomination ? The seat is empty.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
You get it.
Hopefully McConnell is sending a message that will be received by reasonable minds, and they won't try nominating Bernie as his consolation prize.
CFIK
GO CATS!!!!!!!
Likely wouldn't happen, but I'd like to see Obama nominate a centrist, someone who would "normally" appeal to the most Republicans. Then let them explain why they wouldn't nominate him or her.
Regardless of political opinion, I think it would an injustice to the American people if this election be more about the SCOTUS rather than all the other issues that affect us. But sadly this is what our political process has become - divisive. I certainly understand why conservatives would like the decision deferred but I have to ask, if there were a Republican in the White House regardless of who controlled the Senate, would conservatives be suggesting a decision be delayed until the next President?
Our current conservative options love to liken themselves to Reagan, but IMO not one of them really understand what made Reagan a great, inspirational, motivational leader. Only a great leader like Reagan could have nominated a conservative jurist like Antonin Scalia and get a unanimous confirmation by a Democrat controlled Senate. Not one of these clowns will ever come close to unifying this country the way Reagan did.
Regardless of political opinion, I think it would an injustice to the American people if this election be more about the SCOTUS rather than all the other issues that affect us. But sadly this is what our political process has become - divisive. I certainly understand why conservatives would like the decision deferred but I have to ask, if there were a Republican in the White House regardless of who controlled the Senate, would conservatives be suggesting a decision be delayed until the next President?
Our current conservative options love to liken themselves to Reagan, but IMO not one of them really understand what made Reagan a great, inspirational, motivational leader. Only a great leader like Reagan could have nominated a conservative jurist like Antonin Scalia and get a unanimous confirmation by a Democrat controlled Senate. Not one of these clowns will ever come close to unifying this country the way Reagan did.