A change in the U.S. Supreme Court

[SteveMSim 275]

Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has died at age 79.  Justice Scalia was a conservative who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.  

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

With the death of Justice Scalia, that leaves the Supreme Court evenly divided with four conservative leaning and four liberal leaning justices.  Since the U.S. President nominates justices to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate must approve the nomination, there will be a battle between liberal Democratic President Obama and a conservative Republican-dominated Senate over Justice Scalia's successor.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

No political position should be for life. I find the whole concept ridiculous.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

It will be interesting to see who the new Supreme Court justice will be and how he will be elected.

 

Supreme Court Justices only ONLY interpret the Constitution and don't do anything besides rule whether a law is constitutional or not. They need to be experts in Constitutional history, law, and interpretation. They are appointed when an old one dies or retires. If these justices were (re)elected on a regular basis, their impartiality would be destroyed from the political process and their purpose would be nullified.

[MushyMushy 3,617]

I've already heard reports of Ted Cruz hoping for Congress to "delay" the decision so the next president gets to decide (could it be possible that this is because the current president is who he is?). I do believe that's call "breaking the rules," Mr. Cruz.

I look forward to seeing the choice President Obama makes and to see whether the conservative Senate tries to block his pick.

[Meg 368]

From Time magazine

 

As TIME explained in 2005, here is how the nomination process works:

STEP ONE: The President selects a nominee
Nomination: The President announces a nomination to the Senate.
Nominee’s Paperwork: The nominee completes paperwork concerning finances and personal background.
FBI Investigation: The FBI probes the nominee’s criminal history, if any.

STEP TWO: The Senate confirms or rejects the nominee
Senate Confirmation Hearings: The nominee is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Eighteen senators interview the nominee. Topics include the nominee’s qualifications and previous casework. The committee also questions witnesses who support or oppose the nomination.
Committee Vote: The committee votes on the President’s nominee. No matter the vote’s outcome, the nominee is generally sent to the Senate floor after the committee hearings.
Senate Vote: The full Senate deliberates and then votes on the nominee. A simple majority (51 votes) confirms or rejects the nominee’s appointment.

If the nominee is confirmed, the Supreme Court justice is appointed for life.
If the nominee is rejected, the President chooses another and the process is repeated.

[Easy Bakes 253]

^ how long does that normally Take Meg?

Im sure that a lame duck President has nominated someone in the past.

Hopefully they will get it done before the election so it will not be a campaign issue on who they would appoint.

 

 

[Odainsaker 2,133]

For both Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010, the process from nomination by President Obama to confirmation by the Senate took roughly four months.  Sotomayor's hearings were the more contentious.

Republican congressional leaders and campaign contenders today are already calling for "delay, delay, delay!" until after the election, which presumably then would allow one of their own to make the nomination.  That would be a delay until next January, with another delay for both the newly elected administration and congress to settle in, after which the nomination would be followed by the normal process delay for investigations and hearings.  We would likely be looking at a delay of almost a year and half, during which we would have a divided court with no tie-breakers as several major Obama cases percolate up.  It wasn't enough to capsize the economy, ramp up dysfunctional gridlock on Capitol Hill, or turn this election season into the Comedy Barn...now they want to bring their brand of paralysis to the Supreme Court.

Be careful what we wish for...perhaps when the delays are over, President Clinton will nominate and the Democratic majority in the Senate will confirm Justice Obama to an appointment for life!

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

15 hours ago, MintberryCrunch said:

No political position should be for life. I find the whole concept ridiculous.

Is membership in the Supreme Court political?  Notwithstanding the current overheated atmosphere, these justices must be above politics.  In fact, the entire judiciary should be apolitical as well the the full justice system.  Electing members of any part of it is foolish.  Membership in the judicial process at any level should be by merit only.

13 hours ago, MushyMushy said:

I've already heard reports of Ted Cruz hoping for Congress to "delay" the decision so the next president gets to decide (could it be possible that this is because the current president is who he is?). I do believe that's call "breaking the rules," Mr. Cruz.

I look forward to seeing the choice President Obama makes and to see whether the conservative Senate tries to block his pick.

Mr. Cruz doesn't know the constitution.  The president 'shall' nominate.  It doesn't say 'may'.  A good example of why you don't want Mr. Cruz.

[Larks2242 251]

4 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Mr. Cruz doesn't know the constitution.  The president 'shall' nominate.  It doesn't say 'may'.  A good example of why you don't want Mr. Cruz.

Mr. Cruz  does know the constitution and he has had his name mentioned a few times as a nominee even before he ran for senate in 2012.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

3 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Mr. Cruz  does know the constitution and he has had his name mentioned a few times as a nominee even before he ran for senate in 2012.

Then why would he make such a partisan suggestion when the meaning of the requirement is clear?

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Then why would he make such a partisan suggestion when the meaning of the requirement is clear?

Because obviously the Republicans don't want Obama to put another justice on the court and thereby giving the liberals a majority on the court. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Because obviously the Republicans don't want Obama to put another justice on the court and thereby giving the liberals a majority on the court. 

While is seems unlikely in the currently heated atmosphere of U.S. politics, is it possible that Obama will nominate an apolitical person for this post?  Remember whoever it is has to get past the Senate as well.  See @Meg's post above.

[LexusInfernus 908]

9 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

While is seems unlikely in the currently heated atmosphere of U.S. politics, is it possible that Obama will nominate an apolitical person for this post?  Remember whoever it is has to get past the Senate as well.  See @Meg's post above.

Not gonna happen. For one, Republicans hate everything Obama does on principle. Whoever he picks, no matter how apolitical that person is, Republicans will hate him. And second, the Republicans don't want someone who is apolitical, they want someone who will vote along their lines of reasoning. The Republicans, especially the more extreme wing of the Republicans, have adopted a totalitarian mindset, one that demands they 'win' everything. And if they don't win, they throw a fit. And Ted Cruz is in that respect is the poster boy for the Republican wing with a totalitarian mindset, as evidenced by that time he gleefully shut down the entire government when he didn't get what he wanted. So, even if Obama wanted to compromise with the Republicans and get a judge who is acceptable to both sides, Ted Cruz doesn't want it. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Really too bad if the tail is allowed to wag the dog.

Whomever gets nominated has to pass the Senate, not the overheated rhetoricians on the campaign trail.  The Republicans are doing a very good job of shutting themselves out of the White House again.  Imagine what would happen if any of them got to be POTUS.  U.S. foreign policy would immediately go down the nearest toilet, and relations in general would be very bad.  None of these guys is another Ronnie Reagan.

The Republican party has not only shot themselves in the foot, but they used an Uzzi and shot their leg off.  All this frantic behaviour is leaving the Democrats standing alone as the voice of reason.  They'll be feeling the Bern.

[philforhockey51 4,203]

It's quite sad that Sen. Cruz and Sen. McConnell would say what they did, obviously not understanding the constitution. The people did have a say when they voted Pres. Obama in for the second time. The presidency runs to the end of the year not when elections start. Let's also not forget  the confirmation of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and confirmed during the 1988 election year.  Let's also not forget it is President Obama's constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor not just his right to do so. This easily could be on the other foot and I wonder what they would say then.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

On 2/14/2016 at 11:51 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

Is membership in the Supreme Court political?  Notwithstanding the current overheated atmosphere, these justices must be above politics.  In fact, the entire judiciary should be apolitical as well the the full justice system.  Electing members of any part of it is foolish.  Membership in the judicial process at any level should be by merit only.

In theory, the supreme court and the process of filling vacancies on it should not be mired by politics. In practice, it is impossible for it not to be. The supreme court is tasked with providing a final ruling on some of the country's most contentious issues, inevitably many cases involve what is in effect making a decision as to which of the two major parties gets its way. Meanwhile, anyone with the necessary political connections for POTUS to know who they are and nominate them is inevitably going to have to some degree sided with one party over the other. You have to if you want to get anywhere in American politics, no one with influence is going to support you if you don't affirm that you are on their "team".

As a result, whenever an executive is tasked with nominating someone to a position, he is of course going to nominate someone who shares his political alignment. And it shows: whenever there is a supreme court decision on a partisan issue, justices tend to side with the opinion of the party of the president who nominated them. The only significant exception at the moment is Anthony Kennedy, the court's so-called "swing vote" and the one who therefore in effect gets to singlehandedly decide partisan issues.

So, the reason we're now seeing a huge storm of excrement is because a justice nominated by a Republican president has died while a Democrat is president but the senate has a Republican majority. This means that the new nominee is likely to shift the balance of the court in favor of the Democrats no matter who it is, unless the senate refuses to approve any nomination until a Republican becomes president. Which they have the votes to do.

Of course, with the way these things work, what's actually going to happen is this: Obama is going to nominate someone, Republicans in the senate are going to throw a tantrum about it for the sake of looking tough to their constituents. Eventually they are going to realize that their tantrums are lowering the public's opinion of them, and then they will surrender and approve a nomination. 

Either that, or they will wait for some other major news story to grab the public's attention, and then quickly approve a nomination while everyone is distracted. Unpopular political decisions are often made in such circumstances.

 

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

10 hours ago, Duke87 said:

In theory, the supreme court and the process of filling vacancies on it should not be mired by politics. In practice, it is impossible for it not to be. The supreme court is tasked with providing a final ruling on some of the country's most contentious issues, inevitably many cases involve what is in effect making a decision as to which of the two major parties gets its way. Meanwhile, anyone with the necessary political connections for POTUS to know who they are and nominate them is inevitably going to have to some degree sided with one party over the other. You have to if you want to get anywhere in American politics, no one with influence is going to support you if you don't affirm that you are on their "team".

As a result, whenever an executive is tasked with nominating someone to a position, he is of course going to nominate someone who shares his political alignment. And it shows: whenever there is a supreme court decision on a partisan issue, justices tend to side with the opinion of the party of the president who nominated them. The only significant exception at the moment is Anthony Kennedy, the court's so-called "swing vote" and the one who therefore in effect gets to singlehandedly decide partisan issues.

So, the reason we're now seeing a huge storm of excrement is because a justice nominated by a Republican president has died while a Democrat is president but the senate has a Republican majority. This means that the new nominee is likely to shift the balance of the court in favor of the Democrats no matter who it is, unless the senate refuses to approve any nomination until a Republican becomes president. Which they have the votes to do.

Of course, with the way these things work, what's actually going to happen is this: Obama is going to nominate someone, Republicans in the senate are going to throw a tantrum about it for the sake of looking tough to their constituents. Eventually they are going to realize that their tantrums are lowering the public's opinion of them, and then they will surrender and approve a nomination. 

Either that, or they will wait for some other major news story to grab the public's attention, and then quickly approve a nomination while everyone is distracted. Unpopular political decisions are often made in such circumstances.

 

 

That it most likely what will happen. it would be a bit different if the election was in a month or so and the long process could be delayed by the Republicans with out them looking petty. but its 9 MONTHS till the election you  cant have  an empty seat that long.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Republicans throwing tantrums reminds me of a six-year-old jumping up and down to get his way.  The solution to the kid is to meet him on the way  down with a pancake flipper across the buttocks.  Definitely gets his attention and gives the impression that this behaviour is not acceptable.  Wonder if anyone can find a big enough pancake flipper.

The Republicans are looking more and more like unruly children.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Easy Bakes said:

but its 9 MONTHS till the election you  cant have  an empty seat that long.

Of course you can. Who needs a judiciary anyway? Only reason why you would want one is so that President Cruz can be exiled by the Donald to Canada come December.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, A Nonny Moose said:

The Republicans throwing tantrums reminds me of a six-year-old jumping up and down to get his way.  The solution to the kid is to meet him on the way  down with a pancake flipper across the buttocks.  Definitely gets his attention and gives the impression that this behaviour is not acceptable.  Wonder if anyone can find a big enough pancake flipper.

The Republicans are looking more and more like unruly children.

Yeah well these are adults and I'm pretty sure slapping them on the buttocks is very illegal. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Yeah well these are adults and I'm pretty sure slapping them on the buttocks is very illegal. 

and they would probably like it

[Sabretooth78 808]

I have read in a few places that there is precedent in delaying nominations in the final year of a lame duck presidency.  Haven't bothered to look up which ones or how often it has occurred, though...  It's a little bit of a convenient coincidence, though.

I for one can't wait until the balance shifts and both sides are on different sides of the fence and what one does now that is so bad is perfectly fine for the other to do then, and nobody seems to remember they used to have a problem with it.

15 hours ago, Duke87 said:

So, the reason we're now seeing a huge storm of excrement is because a justice nominated by a Republican president has died while a Democrat is president but the senate has a Republican majority. This means that the new nominee is likely to shift the balance of the court in favor of the Democrats no matter who it is, unless the senate refuses to approve any nomination until a Republican becomes president. Which they have the votes to do.

Perhaps the repubs' greatest failing in all of this is believing they're going to hold the office next.  While they will be the next "major party" to hold it (by default, of course), I have my sincere doubts that it's going to be in 2016.  Right now they're riding a good 3-cycle streak of mediocre candidates and in all honesty haven't had a convincing showing since George H.W. Bush won in '88, capping a brilliant winning streak (gotta use sports jargon).  It's pretty pitiful to look back at GWB and say "he's the best one we've had in 28 years."  Something has slipped.  But I could be wrong...

15 hours ago, Duke87 said:

Of course, with the way these things work, what's actually going to happen is this: Obama is going to nominate someone, Republicans in the senate are going to throw a tantrum about it for the sake of looking tough to their constituents. Eventually they are going to realize that their tantrums are lowering the public's opinion of them, and then they will surrender and approve a nomination.

See also Obamacare.

15 hours ago, Duke87 said:

Either that, or they will wait for some other major news story to grab the public's attention, and then quickly approve a nomination while everyone is distracted. Unpopular political decisions are often made in such circumstances.

+1.  It seems just about every one nowadays comes this way.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Interesting discussion.  Do you suppose that the Russians saying the cold war is back on might be sufficient distraction?

And by the way, The Donald couldn't qualify to emigrate to Canada.  We have enough loudmouths as it is.

[krbe 193]

15 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

And by the way, The Donald couldn't qualify to emigrate to Canada. 

No, what I meant was that after Cruz has won hearts and minds securing a landslide result in favour of him, the Donald will take the President-elect's dirty laundry to Washington and exile the crypto-Canadian, shipping him in a great American cage made of dwarf-star alloy. After Mr Trump becomes president, proving that being no. 2 is indeed better than being no. 1, he will appoint 150 justices, making a huuuuge Supreme Court fit for his new Great America.

[philforhockey51 4,203]

^ so you know Senator Palpatine's plan I see

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian mother. Mrs Clinton has already committed Obstruction of Justice. Either could be impeached if one is elected and someone dislikes that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The birther argument is kind of silly considering that the original population of those united states was 100% immigrants.  [Forgetting, of course, the indigenous population who were treated like vermin.]

In Canada, we have had at least two Canadians as Governors General who were born off-shore.  One from Hong Kong and one from Haiti.  I refrain from counting all the Brits who were appointed before we got control of the GG's office.  And of course, we should not forget M. Le Sieur de Champlain (appointed by the King of France) who was the first Governor General of Canada.  When it comes to head of state, we are rather eclectic.

[MushyMushy 3,617]

Plenty of people don't like either of them. Everything about Cruz's platform irks me and as far as I'm concerned Clinton is a Centrist pretending to be a Progressive. I'd love nothing more than to see Cruz disqualified (while I think it's a silly rule that should be struck down, it's currently a rule nonetheless) and Clinton to get in trouble for her actions.

---

On the topic of the SCOTUS, I agree with the idea that the Repubs will probably just accept President Obama's nomination. It's not just that there's 9 months to the election, President Obama doesn't leave office for somewhere around 11 months. His term ends with the inauguration of the next president, not just the election. Based off of this and the estimate that it takes 4 months to approve or reject a nomination (and if the conservative legislative branch didn't stall), President Obama would have time to nominate 3 times if he was rejected twice. They have already pulled several stunts like shutting the entire federal government down, so I doubt they'll leave us without a Supreme Court judge for a year and a half. They have to keep at least some face if they hope to get many reelections.

I've found some of the other candidates' comments about the whole ordeal humor(ously ridiculous) as well. Cruz aside, Rubio said that since Obama has already gotten to pick two judges he should just not pick another one, to make it fair for everyone else or something. He must not take the Constitution as seriously as he says, since I do believe it's not just the President's right to nominate the next judge, but his Constitutional duty. This isn't a playground game where "fair" is a valid word.

[Larks2242 251]

On 2/14/2016 at 0:25 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

Then why would he make such a partisan suggestion when the meaning of the requirement is clear?

You act like this is anything new, Chuck Schumer knows the game, He tried to do it during Bush's last term, Yet now he calls on the senate to do it's job, Funny how it is when the tables turn isn't it?

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

You act like this is anything new, Chuck Schumer knows the game, He tried to do it during Bush's last term, Yet now he calls on the senate to do it's job, Funny how it is when the tables turn isn't it?

Ehh, Chuck U. is in a class of his own.  He's the rare downstate politician that actually seems to understand there is "Moar NY" beyond Putnam County but otherwise I could do without him.