The Passing of Scalia & discussion of the next Justice

Cyia · Feb 13, 2016

Pull out the popcorn.

Not only does this mean that President Obama gets to close out his term with a nomination to the court, but Scalia died in/around Marfa; a.k.a. the home of "the Marfa lights." So basically, cue the conspiracies.

(For those not in the know, The Marfa Lights are seemingly disembodied lights that you can see with regularity from certain points in Marfa, Tx. They're viewable with regularity because the cause has been traced to headlights on the highway. However, that's too simple an explanation and they're still considered to be "unexplained" by far too many people.)

rugcat · Feb 13, 2016

Holy crap!

This will have reverberations.

Roxxsmom · Feb 13, 2016

I can't say I'll mourn him (I feel bad for his loved ones, because my dad passed unexpectedly and I know it just sucks to be hit with that kind of news), as I think he was a very corrupt and disingenuous court justice (if he'd been a true and consistent originalist, I'd at least have respected his judicial integrity, if not his positions). I honestly expected him to hang on until he was 100 out of spite, since he seemed in fairly robust health for a man of his age. I figured Ginsberg would be the next to pass away or step down, since she's been battling a myriad of health issues for years now. Goes to show how capricious life and death can be.

But Obama is going to have a rough time finding a replacement that will get through congress. This will indeed make his lame duck period very "interesting." Even if he goes for someone very middle of the road and moderate. The Republicans will be hoping they can delay this until they get one of their own in the white house.

Though a major battle over a supreme court nominee to replace the man who has been at the forefront of many unpopular positions (whether on the winning or losing side) encourage some Americans to vote for a candidate who won't want to put Scalia Mark II on the court.

cmhbob · Feb 13, 2016

Wikipedia has an article about Obama's Court appointments, with a ton of potential candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates#Names_mentioned

Also a WaPo article from about 6 weeks ago talking about the next Justice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...828dce-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

Cyia · Feb 13, 2016

And so it begins...

Ted Cruz Verified account ‏@tedcruz Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.

rugcat · Feb 13, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
But Obama is going to have a rough time finding a replacement that will get through congress. This will indeed make his lame duck period very "interesting." Even if he goes for someone very middle of the road and moderate. The Republicans will be hoping they can delay this until they get one of their own in the White House.

Absolutely.

Republicans will say that a Scotus appointment is for life and is hugely consequential, and therefore should not be made by a lame duck president, but rather by the incoming president whomever that might be.

Republicans control the Senate and have the power to block any vote on a nominee no matter who the person is or how stellar their qualifications. I fully expect them to do so and very much doubt if we'll have a replacement before the next president takes office.

Toothpaste · Feb 13, 2016

I'll say this, his death and the need to appoint a new justice might throw the election into sharp relief, especially for the left. So many voters have been threatening not to vote at all if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, but now with a new justice on the line, suddenly the question of do we really want a GOP president, moreover one of the options currently available, to be making such huge and lasting decisions becomes more pronounced. It could be a good thing for the left, galvanize voters in a way that they weren't before, regardless of who gets the nomination.

raburrell · Feb 13, 2016

Here's a scenario for Cruz: Senate delays. Sanders or Clinton wins. Say hello to Justice Obama.

Roxxsmom · Feb 13, 2016

rugcat said:
Republicans control the Senate and have the power to block any vote on a nominee no matter who the person is or how stellar their qualifications. I fully expect them to do so and very much doubt if we'll have a replacement before the next president takes office.

And the only thing we can hope for is that it has negative consequences for them come November, both re the presidency and the Senate and House.

I suppose that's a toss up too, as it could shore up their defenses by getting out the evangelical vote but also rally some of the flighty factions among moderate and liberal voters.

William Haskins · Feb 13, 2016

rugcat said:
Absolutely.

Republicans will say that a Scotus appointment is for life and is hugely consequential, and therefore should not be made by a lame duck president, but rather by the incoming president whomever that might be.

Republicans control the Senate and have the power to block any vote on a nominee no matter who the person is or how stellar their qualifications. I fully expect them to do so and very much doubt if we'll have a replacement before the next president takes office.

succinctly and well put.

the folly of this political season is going to come home to roost.

ElaineA · Feb 13, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
But Obama is going to have a rough time finding a replacement that will get through congress. This will indeed make his lame duck period very "interesting." Even if he goes for someone very middle of the road and moderate. The Republicans will be hoping they can delay this until they get one of their own in the white house.

This would mean almost a year delay just in *naming* an appointee to the court, not to mention the vetting and the confirmation process. It would extend over 2 court sessions (the one ending this summer, and the one beginning in October). I wonder how the other justices would look on that--not that anyone holding up a confirmation would care.

William Haskins · Feb 13, 2016

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC'S CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: The president will have to pick a nominee, President Obama, and the question here is whether the Senate will even consider a nominee under these circumstances in the middle of an election year. Normally when Supreme Court Justices think about retiring, because of ill health or whatever considerations, they don't historically do it in an election year if they can all avoid it because they don't want the nomination of their replacement to be a political football.

When something like this happens there is no choice but it is a very difficult time and it's certainly going to be something that the Senate is going to have to think about, whether they're going to leave the Supreme Court with just eight Justices and wait until the presidential election to see if a Republican gets elected and will appoint the next nominee or go ahead and fill this vacancy.

I would be very surprised, frankly, if a vacancy can be filled in time for the next term to start when it starts in October, but it's such an unexpected thing, such a sudden thing, it's such a shock, and that's the way these things tend to go.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...upreme_court_nomination_in_election_year.html

William Haskins · Feb 13, 2016

random thought/perhaps wishful thinking:

trump may well meet his waterloo in tonight's debate over this issue.

rugcat · Feb 13, 2016

William Haskins said:
random thought/perhaps wishful thinking:

trump may well meet his waterloo in tonight's debate over this issue.

How so?

All he needs to do is praise Scalia in general terms and say we should wait for the next president to replace him. I'm not sure what he could say that would blow him up.

William Haskins · Feb 13, 2016

ShaunHorton · Feb 13, 2016

rugcat said:
How so?

All he needs to do is praise Scalia in general terms and say we should wait for the next president to replace him. I'm not sure what he could say that would blow him up.

Other than if someone asked Trump who he would name to take Scalia's place?

Brightdreamer · Feb 13, 2016

raburrell said:
Here's a scenario for Cruz: Senate delays. Sanders or Clinton wins. Say hello to Justice Obama.

If I were Obama, I'd want my next job to be so far away from politics you couldn't even see it with the Hubble...

I'm predicting that nothing will happen before the election; the GOP will pitch enough of a hissy-fit to block any nominee, banking on a GOP prez to put their own guy in a robe.

ShaunHorton · Feb 13, 2016

Brightdreamer said:
If I were Obama, I'd want my next job to be so far away from politics you couldn't even see it with the Hubble...

I'm predicting that nothing will happen before the election; the GOP will pitch enough of a hissy-fit to block any nominee, banking on a GOP prez to put their own guy in a robe.

Or, maybe, just maybe, considering their two top runners are Trump and Cruz, they'll throw their hands up and figure "What the hell, not like our guys could actually do better."

I don't feel too out of line thinking that Trump would put forth some ex-CEO buddy of his, while Cruz will suggest the current Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 13, 2016

Really surprising news. Scalia seemed like the kind of guy who would stay on the court forever.

Arguably the most divisive justice on the court, and the one of the least understood as well, imo.

His reputation for being brash (not underserved, necessarily) will probably survive him, but some of the more nuanced (and more interesting, imo) aspects of his judicial thought will probably be forgotten, I would think. For example, his dislike of balancing tests made him one of the most pro-privacy justices of all time in Fourth Amendment cases.

In the landmark cases he presided over, I probably disagreed with him more often than not. But man, he was a character.

Diana Hignutt · Feb 13, 2016

Will President Trump nominate Judge Judy?

Ketzel · Feb 13, 2016

Diana Hignutt said:
Will President Trump nominate Judge Judy?

No, she's not hot enough.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 13, 2016

Cyia said:
And so it begins...

In other words, "make sure our current President doesn't name a replacement."

Can we go nearly an entire year without a full Supreme Court? What about all the important cases they are considering?

ZachJPayne · Feb 13, 2016

Alessandra Kelley said:
Can we go nearly an entire year without a full Supreme Court? What about all the important cases they are considering?

If Scalia's voted on it, but it hasn't been officially handed down, Scalia's vote is tossed out.

For the rest, they vote without him. 4-4 split, the lower court's decision is upheld without SCOTUS precedent being set.

ShaunHorton · Feb 13, 2016

Alessandra Kelley said:
In other words, "make sure our current President doesn't name a replacement."

Can we go nearly an entire year without a full Supreme Court? What about all the important cases they are considering?

Well, it's not like the GOP is afraid of, or worried about, shutting down the system for a while and taking an extended vacation.

rugcat · Feb 13, 2016

ShaunHorton said:
Other than if someone asked Trump who he would name to take Scalia's place?

I suppose he could come up with something stupid, but that seems unlikely.

I mean, this just happened. I would guess all the candidates will say something along the lines of needing time to carefully consider various choices, but certainly someone who would continue on with the legacy of Scalia's conservative principles

The Passing of Scalia & discussion of the next Justice

Rewriting My Destiny

Lost in the Fog

Beastly Fido

Did...did I do that?

Rewriting My Destiny

Lost in the Fog

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Beastly Fido

poet

All about that action, boss.

poet

poet

Lost in the Fog

poet

AW's resident Velociraptor

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist

AW's resident Velociraptor

Jambo Bwana

Very Tired

Leaving on the 2:19

Sophipygian

Beware: #amQuerying

AW's resident Velociraptor

Lost in the Fog