Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 13 Feb 2016, 10:45 pm

...and we have speculation over his replacement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html


A ridiculous idea to wait that long, however. The court needs to operate. But of course, any president loves to appoint a supreme court justice. I predict Obama will have a replacement picked before the end of the next week (if not before the body of Mr Justice Scalia is even cold).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Feb 2016, 11:54 pm

You're looking at a historic change in the composition of the court. I cannot recall the last time liberals were in the majority on the court. Obama getting to pick three young liberal justices will probably have a bigger impact than anything else that he did.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Feb 2016, 12:30 am

Presumably the Republicans in the Senate will never allow that to happen. Are they in a position where they can delay any confirmation right up until after the election ? If so, what happens in the meantime ? Can the court function with only 6 justices ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Feb 2016, 5:39 am

Sassenach wrote:Presumably the Republicans in the Senate will never allow that to happen. Are they in a position where they can delay any confirmation right up until after the election ? If so, what happens in the meantime ? Can the court function with only 6 justices ?

Yes - a supermajority can be set as the bar to confirm, so there could be a dozen rebel GOP Senators and a nomination can be blocked.

There are 8 now, and as far as I can tell the court could operate with fewer. But an even number means more tied votes.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2016, 3:53 pm

Well, it's one thing if Republican demand a more centrist nominee. Completely blocking Obama from nominating someone would set a horrible precedent. I would hope that there is some back-channel discussions to get a nominee through. Any cases decided 4-4 do not constitute binding precedent is the main impact..
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 15 Feb 2016, 1:00 am

Danivon: supermajority? I'm not up on all the procedural stuff, the parliamentary procedure of the Senate, except that I know they allow some shenanigans that the House doesn't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Feb 2016, 1:43 am

JimHackerMP wrote:Danivon: supermajority? I'm not up on all the procedural stuff, the parliamentary procedure of the Senate, except that I know they allow some shenanigans that the House doesn't.

I think a nominee can be blocked if they do not have 60 Senators supporting them.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 15 Feb 2016, 3:08 am

Remember though, the Democrats "nuked" the Senate during the last Congress. No filibusters for a nomination.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Feb 2016, 3:25 am

JimHackerMP wrote:Remember though, the Democrats "nuked" the Senate during the last Congress. No filibusters for a nomination.

According to this the 2013 "nuke" did not cover SC nominations.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/g ... ers-114540
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 15 Feb 2016, 3:28 am

probably a bad idea to remove it for nominations. Whatever anyone may say about "obstruction" of the will of the majority, it at least prevents a president from trying to rubber-stamp a nomination.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Feb 2016, 2:08 pm

I hope Obama will consider Goodson Liu who currently sits on the California Supreme Court. I have read a lot of his opinions--he is very smart and his opinions are invariably well-reasoned.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Feb 2016, 2:36 pm

I fear this is just going to turn into a horribly politicised mess. The best halfway plausible outcome is that Obama nominates a centrist that can achieve support across the aisle and somehow manages to get them confirmed. Realistically though I don't see that happening. More likely is the the Republicans refuse to compromise and so he goes ahead and picks a liberal candidate to enthuse the base and the Supreme Court turns into an election issue. If that happens then you have a full-blown constitutional crisis on your hands.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Feb 2016, 3:21 pm

I think Republicans learned that there are political costs to being too obstructionist, as they saw in the debt ceiling crisis. My guess? They talk tough until the Republican nominee is decided. After that, they will signal they would be willing to supply enough votes to get approved a centrist nominee. Complete obstructionism could cost them not just in the presidential race but in the Senate and the House.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Feb 2016, 7:49 am

freeman3
I think Republicans learned that there are political costs to being too obstructionist, as they saw in the debt ceiling crisis. My guess? They talk tough until the Republican nominee is decided


Rubio, Cruz and Trump have all taken the position that obstruction and delay are in order.
Only Bush has said a nomination should be allowed to go ahead. (Don't know about Kasich, and Carson is done after SC)
Its unlikely that the Senate leaders would listen to Cruz or Trump and might act in their self interest. Apparently there are enough Republican Senators up for reelection in tight races where obstruction may not go over well with a portion of the electorate that you are probably right about "political costs". But if Rubio is somehow the nominee... do they have to be loyal to his wishes?
At the moment Scalia's death has made the court more libetal and it affects rulings already. a 4-4 tie means the lower court rulings are upheld... and most of these, but not all, have been more liberal... That may force the obstructionists hand too. In hopes of getting a "moderate" nominee...
I think Obama will nominate a minority and/or a woman. In order to energize the electorate more if there is obstruction.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 16 Feb 2016, 10:17 am

the electorate isn't supposed to get involved in supreme court nominations. It's called judicial independence.