• 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

newyorkguy said:
Yes already Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have called for Republicans to refuse to accept anyone nominated by President Obama. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy to obstruct a federal official in the performance of his duties. Or something like that.

:D

But seriously... if they don't even know who the nominee is, why would they do that? If I was Obama, I'd nominate a certain Alabama judge as a joke just to force them to reject him (which they still would, given that there's a damn good reason to do that in his case). It'd be the most poetically justified political move of the century! I'm also pretty sure that most Republicans would actually prefer not to have Ray Moore in there. It'd be politically disastrous.
 
Last edited:
quite silly really, considering the ripe history of SC justices who turned out to be not quite the ideological equivalent the appointer thought he would be...
 
Babbylonian said:
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.
Click to expand...

The entire federal government was shut down for weeks without either an outcry from the Republican voter base or a surge of Democratic voters in 2014.

Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic.
 
C_Felix said:
A republican staffer is already tweeting that Mr. Obama will not have a to successfully appoint a nomiee to the Supreme Court.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02...-already-vows-to-block-any-obama-replacement/
Click to expand...

Your typo is actually correct here. Obama does not have to successfully appoint a nominee. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...

And would you look at that. The US Senate is currently at recess until February 19 for President's Day. Wouldn't that just be perfect?
 
Technically, the number of judges on SCOTUS is not static by law. Having 9 on the court is merely a tradition, rather than a legislated number. I'd nominate 3 more, just to screw with them. Who knows, maybe they'd even accept one. Eleven seems like a nice number, doesn't it? Maybe 5 more, making it 13. Definitely include Ray Moore in that number, just for kicks.
 
Last edited:
ehcks said:
Your typo is actually correct here. Obama does not have to successfully appoint a nominee. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution



And would you look at that. The US Senate is currently at recess until February 19 for President's Day. Wouldn't that just be perfect?
Click to expand...

Damn you typo!
 
Manopolus said:
Technically, the number of judges on SCOTUS is not static by law. Having 9 on the court is merely a tradition, rather than a legislated number. I'd nominate 3 more, just to screw with them. Who knows, maybe they'd even accept one.
Click to expand...

The number of justices is set by law, actually. It used to get changed a lot, but now we have the Judiciary Act of 1869
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
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

Antonin Scalia’s bad law, bad history: How the Supreme Court legalized corruption
Click to expand...

The idea that the ratifiers of both the Constitution and the 14th amendment just somehow missed that they made same sex marriage Constitutional is risible.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
If they stall until President Hillary/Bernie takes over wouldn't it be delicious if they then nominated Obama himself!
Click to expand...

I generally like to vote for republican governors/mayors and democrat judges. The idea of Bernie (not Clinton or Obama) nominating the next judge seems agreeable to me. We could get a judge who wants to reign in the excesses of the NSA and local policing agencies, while simultaneously believing the 2nd amendment means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
ehcks said:
The number of justices is set by law, actually. It used to get changed a lot, but now we have the Judiciary Act of 1869
Click to expand...

Hmm... okay. I was basing that on some foggy knowledge of early American history. I may be remembering something that is no longer relevant. There were multiple times where the number was changed (or an attempt was made to change it) in the early history of the court.
 
Last edited:
My first thought was to offer condolences to Clarence Thomas. How's he going to make up his mind now?

However, someone on the internet said something even more cutting, that this would be a great day for Justice Thomas to do whatever Scalia does.
 
I already saw a website that said there is no minimum requirement. The 1869 law merely set the maximum number of members of the Court. Apparently the Court can still hear cases with eight members. There is no law that can force Republicans in Congress to approve a nominee if they don't want to.
 
I'm confident there will be no confirmed replacement before the election. I hope to be surprised.

But, if no replacement, then is there any real threat of a 4-4 split? If I recall correctly, if there is a tie vote, the lower court ruling is upheld. Not sure yet what that might mean for the upcoming 2016 cases, but I'm sure our politicians will be considering it when they decide how to behave with regard to confirming a nominee.
 
newyorkguy said:
I already saw a website that said there is no minimum requirement. The 1869 law merely set the maximum number of members of the Court. Apparently the Court can still hear cases with eight members. There is no law that can force Republicans in Congress to approve a nominee if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

If they try to block for 11 whole months, Obama will surely do a recess appointment.

They might also try that "We're not in recess even though no one's here" thing again, but still. Eleven months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom