Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 382 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#111

Post by tptacek »

showerst wrote: post #103
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans have more or less already announced that they will refuse to consent to a replacement this term. That could change if Hillary wins (she will likely take the Senate with her if she does), but, the odds-on outcome is: Obama nominates someone, but no Obama nomination is confirmed. It's not just that it's an election year, but that it's a closely divided Senate with a liberal President replacing the most…

They're obviously going to say that now (keep in mind so far the people who've said that are Cruz who is on judiciary but will never approve any Dem candidate and McConnell who doesn't matter.) The ones who matter most are probably Flake and Tillis since they're the least conservative among the judiciary members not up for reelection. I think we'll see an initial stall for sure, and then in a few months it will depen…

I agree that the 2016 election becoming a foregone conclusion is a circumstance in which a nomination might happen, but it's the only one. Equally importantly, by the time the election becomes reasonably predictable, Obama will be butting up against the limits of the window in which he can get a nomination through even in favorable conditions.

Obama will not replace Scalia. I like the Dem's chances this cycle and so am not despondent about this.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#112

Post by erikpukinskis »

vonnik wrote: post #30
nemo wrote: post #28

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.

I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a recount would've been any more or less fair.

I think our energies are better served changing the widespread voter disenfranchisement which does in fact distort the ability of our electoral system, as enacted in law, from representing the will of the people.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#113

Post by vcarl »

trobertson wrote: post #62
gk1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Republicans oppose the nomination, that could be used as political leverage against them during the election. "Them" being Republicans, or Democrats? Trying to understand.

It will be interpreted as Republicans shutting down the government... again. Moderates and Independents, and Centrists on both sides tend to strongly dislike that, and it could swing the election to a Democrat victory.

That might be the case, but stalling a justice nomination isn't as severe or visible as a government shutdown and might not get the same level of attention.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#114

Post by spinlock »

x0x0 wrote: post #52
nbadg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely to be correct re: nomination, though it's difficult to know how the election will effect the confirmation process, and vice versa. Kagan was nominated May 2010 and confirmed August 2010; Sotomayor was nominated May 2009 and confirmed August 2009. I'm inclined to expect a nomination sooner rather than later, potentially of a candidate with very strong Democratic support. If Republicans oppose the nomination,…

Of course, the fear that democrats may take both the presidency and the senate might motivate senate republicans to make a deal now, since there's a nonzero chance an immediate deal comes with maximal leverage.

I just don't see republicans as that cautious.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#115

Post by rpgmaker »

aioprisan wrote: post #71
fennecfoxen wrote: post #64

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.

McConnell already said that Obama should wait for the next POTUS: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-rep...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#116

Post by mikerichards »

saalweachter wrote: post #102
mikerichards wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republican-controlled Senate can just hold up the nominations until whenever. In fact, Republican voters are going to demand it. 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.

Well, yeah, but that's why they elected Obama, twice.

True, but considering the circumstances, it's not going to happen until at least the next President is elected. The democrats would do the same thing.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#117

Post by ck2 »

falsestprophet wrote: post #109
ceejayoz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama. Two words: recess appointment. They've got a recess coming up later this year.

Not enough words. Here are more words: During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate specifically blocked Republican President George W. Bush from making any recess appointments with the use of pro forma sessions. In 2012 President Barack Obama attempted to make four appointments during a pro forma session, calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question. However, on June 26, 2…

Yes the republicans came up with a trick to gavel in each day (aka "pro forma sessions")

Which made them technically not in recess even though no business was done.

And the court ruled that was fine.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#118

Post by tptacek »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #112
vonnik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a…

Yeah, that's pretty close to what I think about the 2000 election as well. If you're going to blame one person for what happened, well, none of them were on the Supreme Court.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#119

Post by tptacek »

spinlock wrote: post #106
smt88 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Do you think Scalia moved gradually left? I've always considered him to be insanely consistent.

Sometimes "left" and "right" are useful labels, and sometimes not.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-fighter-priva...

He was intensely conservative.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#120

Post by jbapple »

tptacek wrote: post #98
orbitur wrote: post #43

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…

Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"?

> Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"?

Is there anyone you would call a terrible person? "No" is an OK answer here.

Are any of them people you did not know? Again, "no" is an OK answer here.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's not constructive to call someone a "terrible person", but if we are to ever call people terrible, it seems like there are some public policy actions that might be sufficiently cruel or immoral to justify calling someone a public figure who sought and used extreme power for extreme evil a "terrible person" even without having first-hand knowledge of that person's day-to-day life.

Or we could limit our condemnation to their actions and advocacy, not their whole person.

Post reply on HN