Skip to main content

Topic: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia (Read 11426 times)

Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia 
March 11, 1936 - February 13, 2016



Whether one had a positive or negative view regarding Justice Antonin Scalia's decisions while on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Americans in this forum, as do Americans all across America, stand in respectful mourning at Judge Scalia's passing at the age of 79.

In the coming days there will be countless heated political debates, amongst not only Americans, but all those that have an opinion on who should succeed Judge Scalia, & how he or she should be picked, regarding the actual presidential nomination, selection, & Senate approval of Judge Scalia's eventual successor.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:  [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint.......Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.........


Q:  What role(s) should the United States Senate play in considering Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, & How should the Senate go about fulfilling it's Constitutional Obligations of "Advice & Consent" in this matter?

Quote
The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005.  The reasons for the rejections vary, and include incompetence, inexperience, and impropriety.  Most of the rejections, however, reflect in part, or even primarily, a difference between the President and the Senate over whether the nominated justice represents the right ideological choice.........
 

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/senateconfirm.html

What Say You.........   
  • Last Edit: 2016-02-15, 00:54:41 by SmileyFaze

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #50
Weird that a graph of what presidents did nominate someone for the SCOTUS in the last year of the term is "statistics."
Weird, that someone supposedly educated beyond kindergarten thinks that uniformitarianism applies to such a human activity as politics... But you think how you were taught to think! :)

Let me put it simply, in fact so simply that even you can understand it:
The constitution requires the Congress to make a political choice. Given the current makeup of the Congress, that choice has been made.
You don't like it.
Whatever you don't like is wrong...
Thus, not giving Obama a third (liberal) appointment to the Supreme Court is -- well, in your opinion, wrong; and you don't like it.
But there's no logic that gets you what you want: Another liberal Obama appointee to the Supreme Court.
That is what you want, isn't it?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #51
You're assuming the new appointee will be liberal. Than again, you do have a low threshhold of what you consider liberal and by your personal definition the majority of the population is. Fact is there's a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President is obliged to attempt to fill it, which is his duty according the Constitution. The Constitution overrides the GOP's partisan bullshit now has it has when the SCOTUS had to overturn the GOP's other unconstitutional crap. End of story. 

Now about that the nominee will be liberal. At the head of the Obama's short list is Sri Srinivasan, widely view as a moderate. But by your standards he's probably a socialist :rolleyes: But a highly qualified, moderate appointee such as Srinivasan will serve to make the Republican senators' antics seem even more ridiculous. The President is playing chess. The GOPers aren't even playing checkers; they're playing tick-tack-toe.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #52
The GOP -for once!- is playing politics, when it matters.
Fact is there's a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President is obliged to attempt to fill it, which is his duty according the Constitution.
Agreed! Where in the constitution does it say Congress should or must accommodate the president?
Is it written somewhere that whatever the president attempts is to be obliged, by the other two branches of government? Obama himself has told us that he is neither Emperor nor King... However much you regret and dislike it, he's correct.
Of course, he's also told us he "has a phone and a pen"... And you don't have a problem with that!
You're assuming the new appointee nominee will be liberal.
Of course... (BTW: Your -and Obama's- idea of "moderate" is an "I have never been a member of the Communist Party (wink-wink, nod-nod)" sort of candidate.

The plain fact of the matter is that Obama hasn't the votes to install another Supreme Court justice...

But if Bernie or Hillary wins... Well, you get what you want. And, I'd wager, what you deserve...
The president is playing tiddly-winks! He has no other options.

One question I'd ask: Have you ever read the constitution? If so, why? (Yes, questions often lead to more questions... :) )
  • Last Edit: 2016-02-23, 10:33:00 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #53
The GOP -for once!- is playing politics, when it matters.

:cheers: When don't political parties play politics? :beer:

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #54
That "Supreme Court" must not be what around here we understand by Supreme Court for sure.
When institutions are consolidated, there's no place for one man show.
A matter of attitude.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #55
:cheers:  When don't political parties play politics?  :beer:
When they play CYA, to save their seats, it doesn't much matter -- except to them and their cronies. I suppose you can call that politics, too.
But when the stakes are the make-up of the Supreme Court for at least a generation, politics is more important than politicking... No? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #56
Agreed! Where in the constitution does it say Congress should or must accommodate the president?
Is it written somewhere that whatever the president attempts is to be obliged, by the other two branches of government? Obama himself has told us that he is neither Emperor nor King... However much you regret and dislike it, he's correct.

In this case, the problem is not Obama. It's the Senate claiming they'll refuse to even go through the hearings to confirm or deny his nominee (or in the case of some, automatically deny.) This is the potential to blow up in their faces in at least a couple ways. Obama can nominate some that's so obviously qualified and politically moderate that they'll have to cave - AFTER getting the word out that Obama shouldn't. Plain old obstructionism could cost them seats in swing states and thus control of the Senate.

Meanwhile, the irony is that when justices get appointed they often go their own, party independent way. So an Obama appointee is liable to rule the same as a Trump, Cruz or Rubio more often than not regardless.  If by miracle the GOP presidential nominee gets elected, do you guys somehow think Roe v. Wade will somehow get overturned still, or that equal marriage will be? That's right, all this drama that carries the risk senators losing their seat come November is liable to be for nothing.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #57
Plain old obstructionism could cost them seats in swing states and thus control of the Senate.
As always, you presume your side's victory and then "generously" offer a slightly less onerous alternative...
That's right, all this drama that carries the risk [of] senators losing their seat come November is liable to be for nothing.
That's why I said that -this time- politics was being played, for the right reasons!
But your presumption that it will be for nothing is just your way of saying: "I want what I want! Everyone else be damned!"

Senators losing their seats is a tragedy...? :) You're an odd duck, Sang!
But I think the Democrat Party is close to being on its last gasp... (How else to explain the poll numbers of Bernie Sanders? :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #58
Perhaps this The Hill article on The GOP's SCOTUS mega-mistake can explain to you better than I'm bothered to.

Quote
It would be a catastrophic political mistake for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP leaders in Congress, not to mention Republicans running for president, to campaign until Election Day on a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court -- one that could dramatically increase the chances that Democrats win the presidential election and make sweeping gains in the 2016 congressional elections.


The article goes into detail why, of course.

Quote
Democrats will charge, and a large majority of independent and moderate voters will agree, that Republicans have taken their politics of obstruction to the draconian extreme of a two-term government shutdown of the Supreme Court. Democrats will charge, with good reason and strong chances of success, that the GOP Supreme Court shutdown scheme embodies everything Americans dislike about Washington and everything that brings Congress to such high levels of public disrepute that, according to RealClearPolitics, more than three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress.


....

Quote
The biggest losers of the GOP Supreme Court scheme will be Republican senators and candidates running in New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states in which close elections could well be tipped to Democrats by a roused Democratic base and outraged moderate and independent voters, who will conclude that the Republican Senate itself represents everything they detest about the partisanship and dysfunction of Washington.


Yup, hardly playing politics for the right reasons - unless that reason is the GOP committing suicide.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #59
Quote
[...] a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court [...]
In other words, unless there's a liberal majority, the Supreme Court has been "shut down"? Of course, you think so. But I don't. A majority opinion -out of eight Justices- shouldn't be so difficult, should it? :)
(And, of course, you know why it is!)

The Supreme Court is in nowise "shut down"... Only the ideological divide is up-ended; and I'm not sure -yet- that that's a bad thing... Only a 5 to 3 majority will prevail! Is that such a bad thing?

Or do you -like Howie- prefer a "wider" democracy...? :) (Of course, you don't! And neither does he... But can you be honest about it?)

Eight Justices are enough, aren't they? Or does the "system" require one more, to break a tie -of opinion and argumentation- so that partisans can go on to the next "issue"?

I think you truly believe that eight are not enough: One on your side should rule...!

Why?!
Quote
If the GOP scheme were to prevail, McConnell and Republicans would undermine the court not only for the remainder for its current term but for its next term as well. Even when the court convenes on the first Monday of October 2016 for its next term, the GOP-imposed judicial havoc could continue until well into 2017, or whenever the new president nominates, Senate Judiciary Committee considers and the full Senate votes to confirm a nominee for the vacant seat.
Is the lapse of 5/4 decisions such a hardship? Really...?
Oh, well: Politics is a risky business! (You think it shouldn't be? :) Explain, please! Should you not:)
Democracy is, then, obviously not something that means much -- to you.
(But, of course, I knew that already. :) You just want what you want... Please explain how it's anything else that motivates your "views," in case you'd not be branded as what you are!)

Let me put it so that even you can understand: At a certain point -electoral politics be damned!- the country's at stake!

Do you really believe there are any on your side who feel this way?
  • Last Edit: 2016-02-24, 11:25:33 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #60
The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution. There seems to be a kind of attitude of a vengeance. Too many people in jail and that recent case of a man kept in solitary confinement for 43 damn years? And all those pictures we often see of a prisoner not just in handcuffs but chains and feet shackled. How old fashioned and out of the past which is disgraceful.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #61
The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution.
Really? Bolshevik or Menshevik? Perhaps we should adopt Stalin's methods...? :) But, seriously, RJ, what do you mean? (Of course, I know that you really have no idea... :) You are an exceedingly shallow thinker!)

First, law evolves along with society. As yet, the psychological sciences haven't done much to make "rehabilitation" very practical. (A Clockwork Orange is fiction, you know?) Second, the type of crimes we'd -most of us- want curtailed, and punished, are much as they've always been. Third, the force needed to curtail and punish such crimes is only mitigated by a certain willingness to not do so... (Others suffer. Law-abiding others, usually. You're okay with that?)
You seem to want to talk about the "hoodlum in the street" as the sin qua non of the citizenry! Perhaps, in Glasgow, that is the case...  I myself don't think that hoodlums are a necessary component of the body politic. (But you want a "wide" democracy, still, I'm sure! Our thugs, thieves and highwaymen deserve representation, too, eh? :) ) I'll grant that civil society and its laws need to be plain, consistent and none too onerous...
(That's a conservative position that even you can't reject! Or can you?)
Well, sir, that is just a description of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is tasked with. And Justice Scalia was a wise, learned and conscientious practitioner of his craft: Constitutional interpretation.
You, of course, have a problem with that! :) Do tell us why...
  • Last Edit: 2016-02-25, 06:58:03 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #62
The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution.
Go to it! Your Scotland is where you should concentrate your efforts; and I wish you luck! :)
Or did you mean something else? (It's often hard to tell, what with your knuckle-typing, your general ignorance of grammar and spelling, your ridiculous animosity for the U.S. (and others...) and your naivete...) So: What kind of "revolution" would you like? :)

I promote you: Queen for a Day! Proclamate away, old sod. :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #63
Here's another example of judicial sanity...  It's long and "involved" but easy to understand.

Don't we need judges who can and will make such decisions? Or do we just want apparatchiks? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #64
Well I would share the attempt to show me as ignorant as based on the hard fact that you know little about democracy, rights, sense but living where you do one can make allowances. Could almost feel sorry for you but there are millions like you over there so it is a national problem!  :up:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #65
Quote
A Responsibility I Take Seriously

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.  It's a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

It's also one of the most important decisions that a President will make.  Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn't something I take lightly.  It's a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum.  And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I'd share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified.  He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity.  I'm looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role; who understands that a judge's job is to interpret the law, not make the law.  I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

But I'm also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear.  There will be cases in which a judge's analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.  That's why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.  It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times.  That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

A sterling record.  A deep respect for the judiciary's role.  An understanding of the way the world really works.  That's what I'm considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court.  And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they'll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
(source)

Full strength? :) No wonder this man never published an academic paper in his field -- constitutional law!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • Jochie
  • [*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #66


Full strength? :) No wonder this man never published an academic paper in his field -- constitutional law!
I'm not impressed with Obama's constitutional law credentials.

The reality is that he was a "Senior Lecturer". A position given to the elite, like politicians, judges, artists (Senior Lecturer in the Humanities). Its like the giving of honorary degrees.

Its the "elite" taking care of each other. A real professor is expected to do academic research, submit academic papers and have them published. You won't see any under Obama's name.

Its like when his wife was taken care of. Before he became US senator Michelle was paid $122,000 a year. Two months after Obama elevation to US senator Michelle was  promoted and her salary bumped to $317,000. Such coincidental timing and such a large bump.

How many of you here had your salary almost tripled with one promotion?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-09-27/news/0609270216_1_greenville-hospital-system-university-of-chicago-hospitals-michelle-obama

ps - many hospitals are dependent upon Federal largesse.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #67
Two months after Obama elevation to US senator Michelle was  promoted and her salary bumped to $317,000. Such coincidental timing and such a large bump.

Quote

In fact, Mrs. Obama's income in 2006, a year after her promotion, had decreased to $273,618. And for 2007 (the year she actually started working part-time), her income was $103,633, according to the couple's tax return for that year. She took an "unpaid leave of absence to work on her husband's presidential campaign" in 2008, but still received $62,709 from the hospital. However, Easton noted that her final reported salary "consists of accumulated but unused vacation time plus the final payout from a supplemental executive retirement plan."
Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #68
Aren't we getting more than a little "off topic"?
There are two questions:
Must the Supreme Court be fully manned? (You Feminazis will forgive the term, I trust!) And does the Constitution require it to be so?
These are questions that require political resolution... Or acceptance. (Some reading ability would be helpful; but, since believers in the "living constitution" don't actually believe in words that have definite meanings...)
I'm for the latter.

But, perhaps, everyone who's interested agrees with me? :) (What are the chances?)
  • Last Edit: 2016-03-01, 06:50:37 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #69
Groan. That constitution always comes up to be argued over.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #70
Who would-a thunk it? :) The constitution and the Supreme Court are somewhat related...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #71

Who would-a thunk it? :) The constitution and the Supreme Court are somewhat related...


"Quit you like men: be wrong"

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #72
 8)
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #73
RJ, your constitution is pretty much what your judges say it is. Ours is becoming much the same thing...
I don't want that. As far as I can tell, you do; you'd like to see the U.S. become as loopy as your country is: How many places accept and accede to Shari'a in the UK? :(

Why?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #74
Ah but you are trying to make excuses by trying to include us Oakdale! Our judges are appointed in experience and a gradual promotion to different levels and such. Your country uses politic to appoint and that is unfortunately a head shaking way. We exist as a democracy without a written constitution while your folk argue and fight over one yet we have a generally well run State, democracy and generally. Unfortunately many of your courts will get into a deep furrow of arguing over tiny,tiny things. From time to time over the years some of your judges have been fought over by the political class and that detracts from the way of doing things and a pity as some have been well bruised by such doings. The 2 systems are very different and here less than shows. In many countries the Muslim lot do run Sharia stuff from back rooms and you may find that happens in your own but they will never be legal and certainly not here. Can see your local t but trying to equate 2 very different systems  in the legal frame is not the way. We must be the only country without a constitution but the point is we have not fell apart like some countries and that our judges are not dumped on us by politics is a boon.
"Quit you like men:be strong"