Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Topic: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia (Read 60003 times)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #25 – 2016-02-18, 04:45:11

[glow=green,2,300]Has anybody heard of the[/glow] [glow=black,2,300]Thurmond Rule[/glow]?

Source: WIKIPEDIA

Quote

The Thurmond Rule is a rule of thumb in the United States Senate that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the months leading up to presidential elections.[1]. The term originated with former Senator Strom Thurmond's opposition to President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in June 1968.

The specifics of the rule vary among sources. Thurmond himself said that no lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.[2] In the last year of George W. Bush's second term, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein suggested that nominees that are not confirmed by June of that year would not be confirmed at all,[2] while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated the rule as meaning "judicial nominations do not advance in the Senate in the latter part of a presidential election year without the support of Senate leaders and top lawmakers on the Judiciary committee."[3]

[glow=green,2,300]
What say you?[/glow]

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #26 – 2016-02-18, 06:28:48

A rule of thumb is not a law or principle. This particular rule seems to be without wording and application, so it's not even a rule of thumb.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #27 – 2016-02-18, 06:48:30

That it wouldn't be applicable to Obama, who has 11 months left. Otherwise Supreme Court Justices would have to refrain from dying in leap years, every fourth year after all, until 2400.

There is another tradition, if I get this right, that a late term nominee should be a moderate, a more widely palatable candidate. But if the Republican claim ahead of time they will block a candidate, any candidate, there would be less incentives to do so. They also run the real risk of a President Clinton, an intransigent Senate might even make that more likely, and her candidate might not be so moderate.

I would think it was a mistake by the Republicans to blow so hard up against the process. A candidate could be rejected for a number of reasons, like the length of the fingernails. That would be a rejection of Obama's candidate, not the process. The Senate is also up for election, and the electorate might not judge the judge the same way.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #28 – 2016-02-18, 08:55:10

Senate elections are staggered, three cohorts. So, only 34 seats are on the line — 24 of them Republican, this time. That means, among other things, that the Republican electorate will take a dim view of their majority Senators caving again…
Whether you know it or not, jax, Obama thinks the "Manchurian Candidate" was a moderate!

But -if on the off chance the President actually nominated a principled Constitutionalist- the Senate could confirm such a nominee. Why does anyone discount that? Just because they said they wouldn't?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #29 – 2016-02-18, 14:14:30

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-18, 08:55:10

But -if on the off chance the President actually nominated a principled Constitutionalist- the Senate could confirm such a nominee. Why does anyone discount that? Just because they said they wouldn't?

Who discounts that? Does any non-politician have a reason to care about whoever gets appointed?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #30 – 2016-02-18, 18:04:45

I don't know why either side of the aisle is bothering with this asinine facade. Judicial activism will happen any way one looks at it.
Scalia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.

At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #31 – 2016-02-19, 01:30:33

"the illegally-running lipless Canadian"…?

Your level of sophistication has reverted to its norm! Go Ole Miss!

If only Jefferson Davis were running, huh?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #32 – 2016-02-19, 01:52:40

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2016-02-18, 18:04:45

lia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.

At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......

Well yeah, except the President isn't a lame duck until after the election. Until then filling judicial vacancies, including the SCOTUS, is his job according to this little thing called the constitution.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #33 – 2016-02-19, 01:53:24

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-19, 01:30:33

"the illegally-running lipless Canadian"…? Your level of sophistication has reverted to its norm! Go Ole Miss!

If only Jefferson Davis were running, huh?

What you are doing, it's there and I see it:

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #34 – 2016-02-19, 01:57:24

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-19, 01:52:40

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2016-02-18, 18:04:45
lia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.

At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......

Well yeah, except the President isn't a lame duck until after the election. Until then filling judicial vacancies, including the SCOTUS, is his job according to this little thing called the constitution.

In general in my lifetime, the last two years of a two-term President are lame duck years. Obama has gone out of his way to reverse this trend, true, with his use of executive orders. It should be noted I wasn't disagreeing with your last part, rather just making the statement that judicial activism will come regardless of who is confirmed (which is what the Conservative side has been lamenting, ironically enough).

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #35 – 2016-02-19, 02:03:36

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2016-02-19, 01:57:24

(which is what the Conservative side has been lamenting, ironically enough).

I don't find it ironic. It's like they''re "constutitionalists" on the parts they like, and ignore the rest. Hypocrites to the rotten core, especially Mitch McConnell opposing nominating a Supreme Court Justice in the final year....

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #36 – 2016-02-19, 03:39:25

No, Rebel, the thread is not derailed. Only the juvenile rhetoric…

Two points: One, the Republicans do control the Senate and have the means to prevent an Obama nominee from being appointed to "replace" Justice Scalia. Two, were the Democrats in a similar position, they'd do the same.

@Sang: You and Howie are always going on about "hypocrisy"… I wonder why?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #37 – 2016-02-20, 01:38:35

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #38 – 2016-02-20, 02:52:55

Well Colonel it has taken you some time but you are in the same corner as myself and it will NOT make any difference who wins. As for the legal matter being discussed it is not too impressive a system in itself and this stuff about political leanings is not a very healthy one re the Supreme Court. Emigrate!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #39 – 2016-02-20, 10:17:48

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-19, 17:38:35

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama

You know, Colonel…I think that could actually happen! (Strange times.)

Of course, Howie, you don't understand the importance of writing things down…

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #40 – 2016-02-20, 16:26:58

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-20, 01:38:35

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama

Sorry, but the black SC seat is not vacant.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #41 – 2016-02-21, 02:38:20

Well Oakdale you lot wrote down a Constitution and have been fighting over the damn thing since then and still doing so. Your Gestapo, oops, giant security apparatus ignores it when suits. Get some fresh air.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #42 – 2016-02-21, 02:46:13

Because in Britain there are no squabbles about the exact meaning of your unwritten constitution? It's just human nature to find some agreement along with disagreement even among equally educated and informed people, Howie. If there wasn't that's more terrifying than a disagreement, such the specter of a totalitarian government punishing all those that disagree. You don't have that enforcing conformity across the UK, do you?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #43 – 2016-02-21, 15:43:35

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-21, 02:38:20

Well Oakdale you lot wrote down a Constitution and have been fighting over the damn thing since then and still doing so. Your Gestapo, oops, giant security apparatus ignores it when suits. Get some fresh air.

Sadly, that's too often true. The constitution is helpful if you have the money to hire good lawyers and to initiate and afford to fight for your rights in court.

If some lone hacker stole the Pentagon papers then I'm sure the result would have been different. It was the NY Times which had the $$$ resources to fight up the judicial ladder.

Then we have the typical Joe Blow who lacks $$$ resources. A 16 year old, accused of stealing a backpack and held in jail for three years until the charges were dropped. So much for speedy trail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html

He's not an exceptional case. Many are held for years without trial. Some for over 5 years.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Rikers-Island-Bronx-DA-Trial-Delays-I-Team-365824861.html

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #44 – 2016-02-21, 18:47:59

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-20, 10:17:48

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-19, 17:38:35
I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama
You know, Colonel…I think that could actually happen! (Strange times.)

Of course, Howie, you don't understand the importance of writing things down…

Your dementia is playing up again my dear Californian friend. That's Sang you are responding to, not me.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #45 – 2016-02-21, 22:45:59

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2016-02-21, 10:47:59

Your dementia is playing up again my dear Californian friend. That's Sang you are responding to, not me.

Could be...

For those few who can stand it, here's another tribute — from a (still) liberal law clerk of his… She measures the man the way men should be measured, I think.

But you could also read the NY Times piece about the Senate majority leader's motives… (The problem with its analysis is that a great majority of conservative Republicans agree with it.

Still, that's McConnell's fault, in'it?)
Were I allowed to ask a question at the next Republican potential nominees' debate, I'd ask each (but especially Trump…) to name 5 potential nominees of theirs…
(I suspect Trump would try to remember Snow White's dwarfs.

)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #46 – 2016-02-23, 01:53:10

I wasn't able to find that story, but I did find http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html]Supreme Court Nominees Considered
in Election Years Are Usually Confirmed The article notes "Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year." The graph below the brief article reveals just how far back nominating justices in the last year of a president's final term goes. No, Oakdale, it didn't start with the Democrats. It started with the Federalists - George Washington to be exact. The only thing unusual about this is the GOP's behavior. Their disregard of the constitution isn't unusual, however

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #47 – 2016-02-23, 04:06:16

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-22, 17:53:10

I wasn't able to find that story […]

It's here. (Your link provides nothing, other than meaningless statistics. And I didn't say it "started" with the Democrats… But you're funny that way!

)
Try Prof. Volokh's latest post… Then, perhaps, you'll understand. I doubt it; but there's a chance.

Politics matters…

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #48 – 2016-02-23, 06:10:39

This is too good not to post…

Ten tweets.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #49 – 2016-02-23, 06:28:07

Weird that a graph of what presidents did nominate someone for the SCOTUS in the last year of the term is "statistics." Some of them knew it was their last term and others didn't. Again, what it does show is this is not at all unusual. I see Volokh is invoking Biden, perhaps as an attempt to show hypocrisy on the Democrat's part because his readers don't realize 1) His not a Democrat anymore 2) Even if he was that's just one person's opinion just as there Republicans such as Jeb Bush who said that he probably would nominate. Regardless, what's going on with the Senate Republicans is an obvious political ploy in the hope that a Republican will get elected. There are no deep principles involved and one that could cost the GOP the Senate (especially now that some senators are idiotic enough to say they'll block anyone the president nominates.)