|
quote:Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, the San Antonio Express-News reported. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reported-dead.html/ This is a big, big deal. The Supreme Court is now split evenly 4-4, and there is probably a better chance of Donald Trump flashing his dick on national TV (actually, not probably, I wouldn't actually be surprised if that happened) than there is of the Senate confirming anyone Obama nominates. Which means this election is about to explicitly be about "who gets control of the Supreme Court".
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Can the Senate really block Obama's appointee to the point where it becomes irrelevant due to the next elections? Yes. They don't even have to give a nominee a vote, but they'll probably just vote them down on a party-line vote to stick it to Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
wasn't the Supreme Court about to issue a decision on a case on the validity of recess appointments or did that already happen
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:yeah but it's hard to imagine them not taking a 10 day recess over the next year. They will make sure not to given the stakes. Also it seems that recess appointments case was over a year ago, oops.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
It would be nice if there was any way to replace bad justices short of hoping they were dead, because while I didn't wish the guy any personal ill will I did want him off the court pretty badly but in reality there's no way to separate the two.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Well, congress could just impeach any justice that makes rulings they dislike. That would be a substantial norm violation that would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the court, so it might not happen for another 5 years or so The bigger block is really that it requires a 2/3rds majority which nobody has had in like forever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The guy was a vile racist. I'm sure chances are he didn't wish you well. The world is a better place with him dead. I'm white and male and not poor, he'd have loved me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:American Civics class gives you the government's perspective on how great it and its Constitution are. It's basically propaganda. Anyway I don't see any good reason to think that one President a hundred Senators all brought to you by Goldman Sachs are actually the best authority to decide who deserves a seat on the Supreme Court, it's just how our system happens to be set up. Except that we can look at the effects of judicial elections in states, and discover the effects are terrible compared to states that appoint their justices.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
someone did not get the memo:quote:Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), speaking on a radio show Tuesday morning, cautioned against objecting to a Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama "sight unseen," ThinkProgress reported. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tillis-scotus-nom of course, he then goes onto say: quote:"If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mold of President Obama’s vision for America, then we’ll use every device available to block that nomination,” Tillis continued. so he's not exactly being mr. reasonable here
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Chuck Grassley may hold hearings as well now:quote:WASHINGTON — Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he had not ruled out holding hearings on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is still no way someone gets confirmed... Almost certainly not, but if they hold hearings and can't find anything disqualifying it becomes even more politically damaging to deny the nominee.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Too whom? Seriously what non partisans really care? This tactic is par for course for the republicans and no one will be surprised. It's precisely the non-partisans who will be most susceptible to "why isn't this nominee getting a vote if there's nothing wrong with them?" and it will continue to come up every time the court issues a 4-4 decision, and when Hillary or Sanders repeatedly references it as an ongoing issue in the election.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I hope you're right but I don't think enough people pay attention. The GOP has been nothing but rewarded for their extremism when it comes to obstruction of nominees. Yeah, but the Supreme Court is the one nominee regular people actually know about and care about even a little bit. Even most lawyers can't really work up much caring over appeals court nominations, despite how important those are (and despite that Roberts keeps castigating the Senate over the vacancies caused by the slowed nominations). I mean it could easily not make a difference but if it's got a chance of making a difference hearings can only help.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. We know why, it's just an illegitimate reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Obama has ceased giving fucks:quote:An exasperated Obama lamented how the opposition to a future nominee is just the latest example of the gridlock in Senate, particularly when it comes to nominations. “We’ve almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate has become," he said. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-supreme-court-nominee-219345
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
gohmak posted:So you argue that this time will be different? It will not be. I don't know what you think "last time" was so it's hard to know which of the many reasons you might be wrong it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
If you want to know why judicial elections are such a terrible idea, 95% of the US posters reading this who have voted have voted in a judicial election and I expect about 95% of those people didn't realize it or don't remember it. They almost certainly couldn't tell you who they voted for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:But guys the Supreme Court justices in Alabama are elected. Alabama! That state that other states look to as a beacon of hope and progress! 47 of 50 states elect some or all of their judges. You can blame people in the 1800s for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Remember that time Obama took office and the Republicans began their stonewalling? Every time since then. Do you remember that time they shut the government down, then got their demands met before they reopened it? No? Stonewalling a Supreme Court nominee is the sort of crisis that stays in the news and that average people won't support. The really effective Republican stonewalling has been stuff that people can't be bothered to care about (sub-SCOTUS nominees). Even their blockade of Lynch broke down, though that might have been more their loathing of Holder and the realization they were only going to get rid of him if they confirmed Lynch. What republicans have done successfully is avoid paying a price for their stonewalling in elections, but a big key to that has been not loving around too close to an election. Which is, incidentally, why Republicans are trying so hard to tamp down demands from the Freedom Cacucus that they have another knock-down budget fight this year. edit: This is also made clear by the GOP senators who are going "sure, let's block any Obama nominee, but for god's sake pretend we have a justification" and getting annoyed at McConnell's "no votes, period" plan. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's all optics. Zero chance someone gets confirmed. Predictit is still giving odds of about 35%-40% Obama gets someone confirmed, which I don't quite get. I keep wondering what I'm missing, or if I should just start collecting the free money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I never wanted to be on his team, I wanted to ideologically destroy him. What the gently caress is wrong with lawyers? As a lawyer usually you don't pick which side you represent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Radish posted:I can totally understand people that shared his ideology being sad about his departure. I however don't think he deserves any respect from anyone else based on the quality of his work. No, no matter how wrong he might be he was very, very talented at writing opinions. Again this may be something easier for lawyers to understand (but then again, it's a quality that's more relevant to being a good lawyer than being a good judge).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
eh, one of his clerks hosed up there and spent a week in the torture dungeons as punishment, Scalia isn't there to do his own fact-checking or research
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Isn't this also an argument against e.g. elected county governments? To some degree, yes - elections for dogcatcher are not helping anyone. But I think for the important town positions word gets out, because it's a small enough community that you'll notice the campaigning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:this might be preaching to the choir but advocating for judges to be elected is like really dumb because all you do is create a system where judges are going to change how they would decide cases to appear more electable rather than actually going with what they believe to be the right sentence There's one judge who ran on his rape conviction rate. Not like he ran for judge based on his rape conviction rate as a prosecutor seeking a judicial appointment, but a judge who ran on the conviction rate in his courtroom. Historically the only way for a judge to get booted out was ruling in favor of an unpopular criminal defendant, regardless of how justified the ruling was.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:All of the justices have top notch staffs of like the best lawyers in the country and they themselves are good lawyers . The authority of their branch of government rests on persuasion and the appearance of expertise. You are going to get well written opinions. You've clearly never read a Souter opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Al! posted:You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all. You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
quote:WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is looking to nominate a Supreme Court candidate who has enjoyed past Republican support, Vice President Joe Biden said, offering some of the first indications of the president's criteria in replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/18/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-scalia-successor.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Arbitration shouldn't be illegal, but the court needs to stop banning states from declaring arbitration clauses in specific contracts unconcionable. It's fine if two sophisticated parties want to agree to arbitration: it's not fine if businesses try to force customers into arbitration.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
For some reason Predictit now thinks that Obama has a 60% chance of getting a nominee confirmed (but only 30% chance of his first nominee being confirmed) 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House? Very low, unless there's a vacacy in like year one of the next presidency. He'll be 55 when he leaves office and you don't want to nominate someone much older than that since you want your nominee to last as long as possible. Plus he may not even be interested.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years Obama gets bored and gets himself another Senate seat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:If God forbid Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, would conservatives be putting up a fight since Ginsburg would be replaced with another liberal Judge? Or do you think this big unprecedented FU would've happened regardless as one final big FU? Yes, but not as desperately. Senators up for election wouldn't be jumping on board as fast but a Supreme Court seat is just too valuable to not make a stab at pushing it to a possible Republican President.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't believe Republicans opened themselves up like this. I mean, between losing the Court for a generation, and taking even a 33% chance of taking the White House, it's easy to see why they think it's worth the risk. The economy could crater, there could be a real Clinton scandal, Sanders could get the nomination and be as unelectable as people have said he is, whatever. It's far too early for them to be out of it, though anyone sane will tell you the Democrats are favored it's not a lock. I mean, the Republicans have been working my entire life (and probably yours) to control the Court. They've won a lot, but not everything they wanted and they're staring down the barrel of seeing Obama wipe it all away. It is a Big loving Deal if Obama gets this nomination and it's probably worth hurting their chances a little bit to get the chance of denying the Democrats this seat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But the next President will probably get to appoint one or two justices anyway, it doesn't seem worth it to push that to two or three justices while lowering the chances that it will be them, especially given their tough Senate map. I don't know, if I were McConnell I'd go to Obama right now and promise him a quick confirmation if he picks a moderate but a huge fight if he tries to stack the court with a liberal. The problem with that idea is that the conservatives are so far to the right that "moderate" in this context is liberal. Moderate or liberal - either way, countless Republican victories are going to be overturned. It'll be a long time before you can even get to liberal, most of the effort for years is going to be clearing out the garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Should it really take 23 pages of posts to confirm a judge? we're pretty sure we've confirmed he's dead, yep
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Fun fact: Although appointed by two different Bushes, Thomas and Alito are almost the same age and will probably retire/die around the same time. There's a real plus in going young if you can manage it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
uh why is anyone assuming arkane is being honest, it's a clip from the end of june 1992
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Arkane posted:oh dear god, the callous dishonesty of posting snark! even setting aside the obvious difference between a hypothetical advanced at the end of june and the reality of the middle of february and also the mindless defense of "well maybe its wrong but you would do it too!", that one guy said a wrong thing is pretty different from the entire republican caucus in the senate doing the wrong thing
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
The first GOP Senator up for re-election this year has cracked and defected:quote:Moderate Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on Monday strayed from the hard line issued by Senate Republican leaders on President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court, calling for the Senate to consider the President's nominee. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-kirk-supreme-court-scalia--2 Now, you still need 13 more to get past Cruz's inevitable filibuster (which is probably not happening), but it's very useful ammo for the Democrats in bashing Republicans over this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:02
|
|