SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[Indus]

They'll just obstruct just because..

No way this gets settled till 2017 inauguration. Might as well just go on vacation till November this year.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They'll just obstruct just because..

No way this gets settled till 2017 inauguration. Might as well just go on vacation till November this year.

Reagan understood his reality and nominated accordingly...I somehow doubt Obama will do the same.

 

[Sonikku]

It's curious how the GoP gets to pick ultra partisan political hacks like Scalia, but when it's the Dems turn suddenly there's an expectation that he pick someone moderate. If the Dems have to go moderate to get anywhere while the GoP gets to go ultra conservative then the split is still going to end up somewhere right of center the majority of the time.

 

[ivwshane]

It's curious how the GoP gets to pick ultra partisan political hacks like Scalia, but when it's the Dems turn suddenly there's an expectation that he pick someone moderate. If the Dems have to go moderate to get anywhere while the GoP gets to go ultra conservative then the split is still going to end up somewhere right of center the majority of the time.

Because the GOP and their supporters are the biggest hypocrites this country has ever seen.

 

[CitizenKain]

Maybe Obama will be presidential like and not nominate another liberal...maybe at least someone moderate. With a Republican congress having a Sanders presidency would not be the end of the world.... Better than a trump presidency. But the next POTUS will likely have the opportunity to nominate 2 judges during their 4 years in the White House.

Put a leftist on the Supreme Court and the nightmare of a Trump presidency may be a foregone conclusion.

Weird how it would only be "presidential" for Obama to elect a moderate, when Bush put in Alito and Roberts.

 

[sportage]

Yeah... Wait until AFTER the election cause everyone knows a Black guy dunt know nothin bout birthen no babies.... or replacing dat US Supreme Court justice.
You think GW would wait if GW were still in power????
HA! I say, HA!
No way San Jose.
If GW were president the right wing would be in full gun-ho circle-jerk mode for replacing this dead justice.

Even suggesting that Obama should wait or must wait or wait until after the election and to let the people chime in after the election, that attitude by any republican is probably the most blatant bigoted attitude we've seen directed at president Obama since electing this black man as president.

Obama should nominate a liberal black or liberal Hispanic, and let their right wing bigotry shine on for all to see.
And after all, it is well known the majority of Americans will be Hispanic, with the Hispanic population outnumbering the white population very soon.
So why not have a balanced Supreme Court reflecting the true America population?

I'd be careful if I were republican for what I wish for.....
Obama would chose a much more middle-of-the-road Supreme Court replacement than a president Bernie Sanders or a president Hillary Clinton would chose.
Just watch this play out.
Republicans will block anyone and everyone Obama selects, then Sanders or Hillary will get elected president along with the US Senate returning to the democrats, and Sanders or Hillary will get some extreme liberal justice put in place on the highest court of the land.
And there goes republican hopes for ever overturning Roe vs Wade or re-addressing same sex marriage FOREVER!!!
.
.
.

 

[zinfamous]

Reagan understood his reality and nominated accordingly...I somehow doubt Obama will do the same.

lol--you act like Kennedy was appointed because he was thought to be "moderate."

Dude was an ultra-conservative darling up until he started ruling on cases. It was the happiest GOP SCOTUS circle-jerk post-Roe v Wade after his nomination, and yet Kennedy is now generally regarded as a "traitor" to this day within the GOP gentry.

He was supposed to be what Scalia was.

 

[DrDoug]

The corpse is still warm and the Republican Senate Judiciary Chair is lying:

It is "standard practice" to not confirm nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Saturday, following news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

...

“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," Grassley said.

...

President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court on Nov.30, 1987. He was confirmed in a 97-0 vote on Feb. 3, 1988. Grassley was one of the 97 votes in favor of Kennedy. Democrats held the majority in the chamber.

That or old age has made him forget his own vote in a similar situation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and going with lying...

 

[boomerang]

It's curious how the GoP gets to pick ultra partisan political hacks like Scalia, but when it's the Dems turn suddenly there's an expectation that he pick someone moderate. If the Dems have to go moderate to get anywhere while the GoP gets to go ultra conservative then the split is still going to end up somewhere right of center the majority of the time.

What year were you born? You have a habit of declaring things as if the history of the nation started on that day.

That "ultra partisan political hack" was confirmed with a vote of 98-0. I say this is in the nicest way possible, try to educate yourself to a higher standard.

 

[lopri]

Another person to keep an eye on is John Roberts. He has recently reaffirmed his belief the other branches of the government should allow the court to stay above partisan fray..

The political wars damage public perception of Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts says

Rather unfortunate timing for him (only a week ago or so), but it will be a test whether he is truly committed to what he has been saying or he has been simply talking the talk. Will he tell the Senate what he has been saying outside the courtroom?

Roberts said he thinks the public skepticism concerning the court starts with the Senate confirmation process. Decades ago, two of the court’s most controversial justices — Antonin Scalia on the right and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the left — were confirmed practically unanimously, he said.

While the conservative Roberts’s confirmation proceedings were relatively stress-free, it was not the same for the “extremely well-qualified” nominees who followed him — fellow George W. Bush nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Obama’s choices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The conservative Alito and the two liberals were approved largely on party-line votes, despite few misgivings about their fitness for the job, Roberts said.

“That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees,” said the 61-year-old chief justice.

“When you have a sharply political, divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms,” he said. “If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so furiously about whether you’re going to be confirmed, it’s natural for some member of the public to think, well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process.

“And that’s just not how — we don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.”

 

[nageov3t]

the idea of leaving a bench seat empty for a year and a half just because there's an election on-going seems absurd to me.

and what happens should another Justice pass away or resign? we just leave that seat empty too?

 

[glenn1]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

 

[fskimospy]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

I agree with both of these things! I think you meant it already, but I would make it one 18 year term, no re-nomination. And finally I would slowly implement this over time so the 18 year or whatever terms are evenly spaced.

 

[zinfamous]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

agreed, especially with the last one. SCOTUS very much needs term limits that allow for equal appointments from administration to administration. I'm tired of having rather profound decisions about current and future law being determined by a panel of Crypt Keepers.

 

[TheVrolok]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

Very rarely agree with your posts, but I'm with you on this one.

 

[Sinsear]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

Makes too much sense.

 

[evident]

The Republican calls for Obama not to appoint someone goes against any idea of good governance. They are fucking insane.

 

[LPCTech]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

Far too logical, you cant make this much sense and expect it to become reality lol.

But seriously, yes this, spread it round the net.

 

[glenn1]

I agree with both of these things! I think you meant it already, but I would make it one 18 year term, no re-nomination. And finally I would slowly implement this over time so the 18 year or whatever terms are evenly spaced.

I have fewer concerns about renomination but it's not something I care particularly much about and certainly wouldn't fight for. It would probably be a non-concern if there wasn't a special nomination for Chief Justice and it was just whoever was most senior on their 18-year term.

 

[Bitek]

McConnell already saying we should wait until after election, lol. Is there any precedent for that?

Looking for that rule in the constitution yet I can't find it.

Perhaps one of these strict constructionists who carry it in their sheet pocket can find it for me?

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

And a pony, too.

 

[Wreckem]

Reagan understood his reality and nominated accordingly...I somehow doubt Obama will do the same.

Sure. I think you forget why we have Kennedy, the moderate swing vote on the court. See Justice Powell was the moderate swing vote on the court when he retired. Reagan in his infinite wisdom, understanding his reality as you say, nominated Robert Bork. We all know how that went and that's how Kennedy came to be on the court.

Obama will nominate a left leaning moderate. Hes not a fool when it comes to politics. A far left leaning nomination gives the GOP all the ammunition and political cover they need to block the nomination. Nominating a moderate would cause the GOP to take significant damage from moderates and independents if they block the nomination.

 

[Wreckem]

Looking for that rule in the constitution yet I can't find it.

Perhaps one of these strict constructionists who carry it in their sheet pocket can find it for me?

There is no rule. However, there is no rule that says the Senate must confirm a President's nominations either. The Senate was never supposed to be a rubber stamp.

 

[boomerang]

The Republican calls for Obama not to appoint someone goes against any idea of good governance. They are fucking insane.

To me it sounds like McConnell is channeling his inner Harry Reid.

 

[Wreckem]

The corpse is still warm and the Republican Senate Judiciary Chair is lying:

That or old age has made him forget his own vote in a similar situation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and going with lying...

Thats not exactly like this scenario. Robert Bork was nominated and shot down by the democrats(what led to the politicalization of the Supreme Court) before Kennedy got nominated. The election cycle that year wasn't as long and it was almost a forgone conclusion a Republican President would be taking over for a Republican President.