91–100 of 382 posts
Now we get to see the first ever anonymous hold put on a nomination for the supreme court. It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama. Or come up with some kind of fake moral outrage. Can you imagine Trump picking the next three Supreme Court judges? It would set back America for decades.
Two words: recess appointment. They've got a recess coming up later this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be interesting of Obama did nominate a staunch centrist right out of the gate, as a gambit to get in a new justice confirmed before the likes of Donald Trump gets to make a nomination.
There's a precedent to replace 'like with like', so knowing that Scalia was very right-leaning, (if he gets the chance) Obama will very likely nominate a centrist, if not a right-leaning one. At least that seemed to previously be the case... In this new world of scorched earth politics, who knows.. Edit; My guess for nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan He's a Stanford guy, Indian, already sailed…
In this case, I doubt it applies. In theory Obama could pick a nominee closer to the center to avoid a tiresome confirmation battle, but I suspect there's a bigger bang for the buck in nominating fairly left-wing candidates and making the Republican Senate choose between looking obstructionist to the general public or looking weak to their base.
Considering the constant 5-4 decisions, there's 0 chance that a new justice will be confirmed until the next President takes office
10 months? I find that unlikely. The conservatives might not LIKE it, but no 5-4 decision in the past is going to help them now.
The American people should have a voice on this matter, and if the shoe was on the other foot, the dems would be saying the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but if they do not oppose, their supporters will not support them in the election. They have a duty and obligation to oppose.
> They have a duty and obligation to oppose Which is why they are likely to put up token opposition - enough to placate their supporters. Everyone panders to the center when election time comes, because that's where most of the voters are. This is why the rhetoric is extreme during the primaries, but is significantly toned afterwards.
This isn't unprecedented. Obama is a lame-duck President facing a majority opposition party in both Houses of Congress. His influence is close to its nadir. Scalia is a lion of the GOP. It would have been hard to replace him in 2015. It's probably impossible in 2016.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be interesting of Obama did nominate a staunch centrist right out of the gate, as a gambit to get in a new justice confirmed before the likes of Donald Trump gets to make a nomination.
That's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.
So a real compromise candidate might be possible. It'd likely depend on Obama and the senate Democrats as well, though.
Considering the constant 5-4 decisions, there's 0 chance that a new justice will be confirmed until the next President takes office
10 months? I find that unlikely. The conservatives might not LIKE it, but no 5-4 decision in the past is going to help them now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.
Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
Yes, they all share some responsibility, but the amount is so miniscule given future actions and how many people were fooled and lied to so as to be almost completely disconnected.
He didn't actually say that, and I'm not sure how it spread. However, he's still a terrible person, and here's the quote yours spawned from: “There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.” edit: This was originally in reply…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.
Obama barely got the ACA through the Court, and that was by a breath. He would not give up the opportunity to make sure it's never that hard again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a precedent to replace 'like with like', so knowing that Scalia was very right-leaning, (if he gets the chance) Obama will very likely nominate a centrist, if not a right-leaning one. At least that seemed to previously be the case... In this new world of scorched earth politics, who knows.. Edit; My guess for nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan He's a Stanford guy, Indian, already sailed…
To my knowledge, the precedent is to replace "whoever left the bench" with "whoever is likely to agree with the current President's party". Are there any examples where a liberal president nominated a conservative or vice-versa? (I'm not talking about situations where someone was appointed as a conservative and moved gradually left, which actually happens to all justices.)
By no means a rule, but a tradition at least.