• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

foophil said:
For those wondering, in case of a tie vote in the SCOTUS, the lower court ruling stands without a new precedent being set (meaning a similar issue could be appealed to the SCOTUS at a later date). So even if the Republican party does its obstructionism and prevents Obama from nominating someone, it is likely that it won't hurt much in terms of current cases before the court. Most controversial issues would end up 4-4 now that Scalia isn't there anymore. Long term it could be bad if a republican is elected to president, but I see the odds of that happening are pretty poor at this time.

I'd put a bet down that Obama won't get a nominee selected before he leaves.
Click to expand...

I still think that without Scalia's voice, Kennedy might be easier to persuade.
 
Any bets on whether Obama's nominee even gets considered? I'm pretty sure this particular congress won't even pretend to consider anybody nominated by Obama, considering what they've been doing with the rest of the federal court system.

(ninja'd, obviously)
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
That the government can favor religion over non religion
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/06/scal-o06.html
Click to expand...

You pick the one that is the least controversial? The US Constitution has been held to almost never require secularism over a support of religiosity in general. Assemblies are allowed to have prayers open to everyone rather than be required to not pray. The IRS is allowed to treat churches different.
 
I'm not celebratory or happy, but not sad, either. Being honest, I feel, if anything, a very slight sense of relief.

At least he apparently died in his sleep; one of the better ways to go, I suppose.
 
Damaging decisions: Citizens United, of course.
Rolled back Civil Rights in regard to voting.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think
Scalia's dissent in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which officially made marriage equality the law of the land, runs for eight pages, but amounts largely to a big, arms-crossed "harumph."

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.
Click to expand...

Antonin Scalia’s bad law, bad history: How the Supreme Court legalized corruption
The Supreme Court sided with Sun Diamond, against every court of appeals decision before 1999. It held that the government had to prove that the gift was given for a particular official act. Sun Diamond makes it nearly impossible to prove a violation of the gratuities act for any gift given before an official action. Sun Diamond effectively turned the bright-line gratuities statute into a more demanding bribery statute.

The opinion shows a lack of understanding of the corrosive power of gifts and subtle influence, and no appreciation for the need for clear rules, because of the difficulty of proving connections between gifts and acts.
Click to expand...
 
Odds are that the Republicans will block anyone. Taking chances their guy wins in November. Would surprise me if they clear an Obama appointee, with hopes they get to do it later.
 
The Pubbies are already calling sour grapes, want Obama to put off nominating a new justice. Sadly that demonstrates all the more how partisan the SCOTUS has become (or is).

Someone should remind these supposed Constitution promoters that's not how it works.
 
Last edited:
Someone on another forum commented:

"A ridiculously important person dies while at a secluded ranch party with a bunch of other presumably important guests (who no doubt have skeletons in their own respective closets). All you need is an appropriately quirky detective and you've got yourself a mystery novel."
 
Minoosh said:
The court is due to hear Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole March 2. How do you break a tie in the Supreme Court?

IMO it's pretty hard to tell what individual justices will do once they have the job for life. The Roberts court upheld marriage equality and the health insurance mandate. Trying to pack the court is risky business.
Click to expand...

A tie in the Supreme Court is a reconfirmation of the lower court's decision, but does not set precedent. A later case on the same issue could get to SCOTUS again.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Pubbies are already calling sour grapes, want Obama to put off nominating a new justice. Sadly that demonstrates all the more how partisan the SCOTUS has become (or is).

Someone should remind these supposed Constitution promoters that's not how it works.
Click to expand...
They'd better tread carefully. If the Republicans are even perceived to be obstructing the appointment of a new justice in an effort to undermine the sitting President (especially if an obviously high-quality, "reasonable" judge is nominated), that could be enough to move swing votes all around the country to the Democrats. A new President will be able to nominate just about anyone they want as opposed to a lame duck who might be willing to compromise.
 
Yes already Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have called for Republicans to refuse to accept anyone nominated by President Obama. Disgraceful.
 
Babbylonian said:
They'd better tread carefully. If the Republicans are even perceived to be obstructing the appointment of a new justice in an effort to undermine the sitting President (especially if an obviously high-quality, "reasonable" judge is nominated), that could be enough to move swing votes all around the country to the Democrats. A new President will be able to nominate just about anyone they want as opposed to a lame duck who might be willing to compromise.
Click to expand...

Obstructing basic governmental duties to undermine the sitting president hasn't hurt the Republicans any other time in the past seven years.
 
ehcks said:
A tie in the Supreme Court is a reconfirmation of the lower court's decision, but does not set precedent. A later case on the same issue could get to SCOTUS again.
Click to expand...
A later case on the same issue can always get to SCOTUS again if the lesser courts give a particular SCOTUS decision the finger. It might not be heard of course but it's always possible, especially if a few years have passed.
 
Mitch McConnell, how hypocritical claiming the voters should have a say in the next Justice. Does he not know Obama was elected?
 
Desert Fox said:
My suggestion is simple for Obama actually . . . . Nominate a reasonable Reagan appointee.
I think I might know the one too - John E. Jones III

Can use the argument that he was good enough for Reagan
Click to expand...

George W Bush actually, but your idea is still valid.
 
ehcks said:
Obstructing basic governmental duties to undermine the sitting president hasn't hurt the Republicans any other time in the past seven years.
Click to expand...
True but I think people take Supreme Court appointments particularly seriously, mainly out of a concern for continuity of government. There are some positions (ones named in the Constitution) that can't sit empty without risking a public outcry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom