Merged Scalia is dead

[Hercules56]

The Constitution requires the President to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice when there is a sudden vacancy. If the GOP-run Senate refuses to question & vote on the nominee, they will be ignoring their Constitutional duty.

 

[steve s]

Wait a minute. Do you know the history behind the Anthony Kennedy nomination?

Yes. Bork got Borked.

It does not quite make the point that you want to make.

Sure it does. It shows that the Dems were willing to confirm someone during an election year, rather than trying to stall until after the election.

Steve S

 

[leonAzul]

Respect, of course, for the loss of vibrant and influential person.

Yet does anyone else think it would be wicked cool if President Obama were to propose Hillary Clinton as his first nomination for associate justice?

 

[varwoche]

The Constitution is not a plain English document. It is a historical work. You are doing the equivalent of using a 2016 English to understand Beowulf and producing explanations that were simply never there. In terms of law, they only carry the meaning of the time.

I keep waiting for gun rights to be limited to muskets.

 

[ehcks]

Respect, of course, for the loss of vibrant and influential person.

Yet does anyone else think it would be wicked cool if President Obama were to propose Hillary Clinton as his first nomination for associate justice?

I would much rather prefer the opposite of this. Sanders or Clinton nominating Obama.

 

[Tony Stark]

I would much rather prefer the opposite of this. Sanders or Clinton nominating Obama.

Obama taking Scalia's seat on the court would be about the greatest thing ever. Not only would Republican heads explode, it would be their own just reward for their disgusting obstructionism.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes. Bork got Borked.





Sure it does. It shows that the Dems were willing to confirm someone during an election year, rather than trying to stall until after the election.

Steve S

The vacancy was created in June 1987, and Reagan nominated Bork on July 1, 1987. Bork was shot down after a lengthy and bitter confirmation process, and then the next nominee had to withdraw because his occasional use of marijuana decades before was uncovered. Kennedy was much more of a consensus nominee, as his record on the court has proven. The claim that no person nominated in an election year has been confirmed to the Supreme Court in over 80 years is accurate. Personally, I don't think it matters when the vacancy happens or when a person is nominated. But the Senate would be well within its rights to delay the confirmation process until the election.

To me, it seems like waiting is good strategy. If Obama were to nominate a moderate, the Senate could wait to see the results of the election and then decide whether to confirm or reject based on those results.

 

[Tony Stark]

The vacancy was created in June 1987, and Reagan nominated Bork on July 1, 1987. Bork was shot down after a length and bitter confirmation process, and then the next nominee had to withdraw because his occasional use of marijuana decades before was uncovered. Kennedy was much more of a consensus nominee, as his record on the court has proven. The claim that no person nominated in an election year has been confirmed to the Supreme Court in over 80 years is accurate. Personally, I don't think it matters when the vacancy happens or when a person is nominated. But the Senate would be well within its rights to delay the confirmation process until the election.

To me, it seems like waiting is good strategy. If Obama were to nominate a moderate, the Senate could wait to see the results of the election and then decide whether to confirm or reject based on those results.

Grassley's claim is, "The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year."

It isn't true. The Democratic controlled Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy 97-0 in 1988. Grassley himself was in the Senate at the time. He is a flat out liar.

Please estimate the odds that he would be spewing such lies if John McCain or Mitt Romney was President. My estimate is 0%.

 

[Rare Truth]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...r-wait-until-election-is-over-to-fill-scalias

What a lying piece of ****. As I said before, Kennedy was confirmed during an election year, 97-0. And Grassley, like McConnell was in the Senate at the time.

I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to be more dishonest and hypocritical than Republicans are.

Indeed.

lol

 

[Shalamar]

Doesn't count when it's a Democratic President.

 

[Ladewig]

Respect, of course, for the loss of vibrant and influential person.

Yet does anyone else think it would be wicked cool if President Obama were to propose Hillary Clinton as his first nomination for associate justice?

I do.

Does Obamacare cover head asplodings?

 

[Minoosh]

Kennedy was actually nominated in '87. However, he was confirmed in '88.

ETA: Fun fact, my dad testified for Bork! At the request of a Democrat looking for political cover in case he decided to vote yes.

ETA2: Reagan wasn't a hater. Really the Bushes weren't either. It matters.

 

[sunmaster14]

Grassley's claim is, "The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year."

It isn't true. The Democratic controlled Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy 97-0 in 1988. Grassley himself was in the Senate at the time. He is a flat out liar.

No doubt he meant to make the following claim: "The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees [made] during a presidential election year."

Personally, I would not be so quick to call somebody else a liar based on the absence of an implied word. But I guess it's a temperament thing.

Please estimate the odds that he would be spewing such lies if John McCain or Mitt Romney was President. My estimate is 0%.

If it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had died during a Republican administration in an election year, I think the odds are reasonably high that he would say something similar. There seems to be an unwritten rule that he would like to adhere to which says "if the status quo is to be upset, may as well let the voters have a chance to weigh in."

 

[sunmaster14]

Obama taking Scalia's seat on the court would be about the greatest thing ever. Not only would Republican heads explode, it would be their own just reward for their disgusting obstructionism.

I don't think Obama would accept the nomination. Deep down in his subconscious, I think he knows that he is not up to snuff intellectually, and it will be very unpleasant to be subjected to analytical beatdowns over and over again by his conservative peers.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Shalamar]

Everyone knows a president can't be intelligent if he's got a (D) next to their name.
Though personal insults against other users here I'm pretty sure are against the MA.

 

[Minoosh]

Personally, I would not be so quick to call somebody else a liar based on the absence of an implied word. But I guess it's a temperament thing.

His statement was inaccurate. Possibly tailored to give an erroneous impression.

ETA: How is waiting a good strategy? If they knew a Republican was going to be elected president, maybe, but it's a gamble. Though I'm sure Trump will nominate the best candidate money can buy. (He's very rich.)

 

[Belz...]

Indeed.

[qimg]http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r589/duadmin/160213-grassley-you-cant-be-serious_zpsvn8kunxt.jpg[/qimg]

lol

To be fair he did say "standard practice".

 

[Minoosh]

Everyone knows a president can't be intelligent if he's got a (D) next to their name.
Though personal insults against other users here I'm pretty sure are against the MA.

I got indignant then decided it was meant as a joke.

 

[Tony Stark]

No doubt he meant to make the following claim: "The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees [made] during a presidential election year."

Personally, I would not be so quick to call somebody else a liar based on the absence of an implied word. But I guess it's a temperament thing.

I'm calling him a liar based on what he actually said.

And either way, where are all these other examples from which the precedent was set? Or did he just make that up?

If it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had died during a Republican administration in an election year, I think the odds are reasonably high that he would say something similar. There seems to be an unwritten rule that he would like to adhere to which says "if the status quo is to be upset, may as well let the voters have a chance to weigh in."

Laughable. You're living in a fantasy world if you actually believe that. There is a zero percent chance that Republicans would have any reservations at all about replacing RBG just because she died during an election year. They Republican President would definitely nominate someone and every Republican Senator including Grassley would vote in favor.

 

[Ladewig]

I got indignant then decided it was meant as a joke.

Seconded.

By the time I reached the end, I thought the post was funny.
Actually it must have been a great joke if it could make a humor-impaired liberal like me laugh.