Judge Scalia RIP

[KellyinAvon]

Does anyone else remember: when Sandra Day-O'Connor retired from the court (eventually replaced by Sam Alito)? Although a Reagan appointee, Day-O'Connor was not a conservative by the time she left.


Who else remembers the lame-stream media blathering on about how a conservative judge couldn't be appointed since balance had to be maintained on the court? Complete and total unmitigated BS, but that talking point got pushed for months it seems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Does anyone else remember: when Sandra Day-O'Connor retired from the court (eventually replaced by Sam Alito)? Although a Reagan appointee, Day-O'Connor was not a conservative by the time she left.


Who else remembers the lame-stream media blathering on about how a conservative judge couldn't be appointed since balance had to be maintained on the court? Complete and total unmitigated BS, but that talking point got pushed for months it seems.

Very good point, and a very good illustration of how ideology replaces constitutional operation of the government. It seems forgotten that the system of appointing justices with the consent of the Senate was designed as a critical part of our system of checks and balances so that the Court would impart stability, representing the principles of administrations and congresses past, such that it would not be possible for a single bad combination of president and congress to derail the republic. Unfortunately, Red Frank's unprecedented four terms allowed him to pack the court so that rather than acting as that representation of the past and of stability, it has since that time swung back and forth between left and stalemate, completely reversing its intended role and ushering in the era of the activist court unilaterally defeating the purpose for which it was created.

 

[KittySlayer]

Does it make sense for the Senate to confirm a slightly left of center (centrist?) nominee if Obama knows he can't get a far left nominee appointed? Obama's ego may outweigh his politics and having the legacy of appointing three+ Justices may be too hard for him to resist.

If the Senate rolls the dice and waits for the new President it could be Hillary or Bernie and then we are guaranteed get a far lefty Justice appointed. The Senate can not avoid confirming some nominee for years. Plus who knows if the Republicans hold the Senate.

 

[jamil]

Is there something else in the link on the email? Because what you posted doesn't reference Scalia once. It's a disagreement over Senate procedure.

Do you think if the circumstances were reversed that democrats and republicans wouldn't switch sides of the argument? This is about ideology and the sides have the positions they do because of that. Democrats don't want to miss the opportunity to put another social justice warroir on the bench like Keagan and Sotomeyer. Republicans don't want that to happen. If everyone approached it constitutionally rather than ideologically, it would not matter. But everyone wants the court to make the constitution say what they want.

So **** it. Wait it out. Let the next administration decide. Maybe miracles happen and Rand Paul will bring balance to the Force.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Does it make sense for the Senate to confirm a slightly left of center (centrist?) nominee if Obama knows he can't get a far left nominee appointed? Obama's ego may outweigh his politics and having the legacy of appointing three+ Justices may be too hard for him to resist.

If the Senate rolls the dice and waits for the new President it could be Hillary or Bernie and then we are guaranteed get a far lefty Justice appointed. The Senate can not avoid confirming some nominee for years. Plus who knows if the Republicans hold the Senate.

Easy to work with this problem. Stall until after the election. In that case, you know whether it is better to cut your losses with a light-duty leftist or wait for Hillary/Bernie to appoint someone who makes Lenin look right of Reagan.

 

[tbhausen]

After 7 years, NOW it's time to get serious? Lol

Yes, it is. Keep laughing.

 

[Lowe0]

Easy to work with this problem. Stall until after the election. In that case, you know whether it is better to cut your losses with a light-duty leftist or wait for Hillary/Bernie to appoint someone who makes Lenin look right of Reagan.

And if the Democrats retake the Senate?

 

[jamil]

And if the Democrats retake the Senate?

This is a very likely scenario. Contrary to those who think the Republican sweep showed the nation is further right, Republicans swept because the math favored republicans. I'm not saying that the republican victories don't demonstrate some moodiness, I'm just saying that it's hard to say because the advantages in the math overshadowed that.

This time the math favors democrats. If Republicans don't lose either majority, then we can say those republican victories meant more. But Republicans in New Hampshire, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and possibly a few others, including Indiana, are vulnerable. That's more than enough to give it back to Democrats.

But still, we're beyond having a delay in confirmation determining those outcomes. This is the battle for all the marbles. THAT will be what determines those outcomes more than whether it's delayed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And if the Democrats retake the Senate?

Confirm the just left of center guy on Wednesday after the election.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As to the several INGOers that texted me at the Winter Warmer and then at the movies, let me provide this insightful legal analysis:

 

[jamil]

Confirm the just left of center guy on Wednesday after the election.

No. Withdraw the nomination and pick afar left ideologue. These opportunities to stack the bench unopposed don't happen often.

 

[trucker777]

Oh these are interesting times! ...indeed.

 

[printcraft]

So, while being a vague as possible............

The individual right was affirmed with a 5 to 4 margin previously............
How long after the new appointments make it 5 to 4 against does the shooting war start?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you think if the circumstances were reversed that democrats and republicans wouldn't switch sides of the argument? This is about ideology and the sides have the positions they do because of that. Democrats don't want to miss the opportunity to put another social justice warroir on the bench like Keagan and Sotomeyer. Republicans don't want that to happen. If everyone approached it constitutionally rather than ideologically, it would not matter. But everyone wants the court to make the constitution say what they want.

So **** it. Wait it out. Let the next administration decide. Maybe miracles happen and Rand Paul will bring balance to the Force.

They were reversed. Ronald Reagan's last appt, and this didn't happen.

 

[Lowe0]

Confirm the just left of center guy on Wednesday after the election.

What's your leverage to get the Democrats to play along with that, vs withdrawing their nominee and going further left?

 

[KG1]

RIP "Nino"

 

[IndyDave1776]

What's your leverage to get the Democrats to play along with that, vs withdrawing their nominee and going further left?

First gavel to bang wins. If a nominee is confirmed before being withdrawn, he's it.

 

[jamil]

They were reversed. Ronald Reagan's last appt, and this didn't happen.

Didn't get his choice. You think Obama's going to pick a "Kennedy"?

 

[Lowe0]

First gavel to bang wins. If a nominee is confirmed before being withdrawn, he's it.

So your brilliant plan is to have 51 people get together and act faster than one guy can get to a conference room that's on the other side of his house? Didn't think this through very much, I'm guessing?

 

[Alpo]

I'm goin' for Sri Srinivasan.