Flying under the radar, perhaps, highlights maybe the most impactful thing about this election: the Supreme Court balance/direction can potentially be hugely altered for the next few decades.

Scalia was one of 3 conservatives, balanced by about 3 liberals, with the 3 moderates in the middle usually swinging the vote. Put up the good fight trying to hang on for a Repub to nominate a conservative replacement

I wonder what happens now, if Repubs can block anyone Obama nominates until after the 2016 election. Crying from the left and right-wing media aside, I don't think it would be wrong for Congress to stubbornly refuse to alter the political balance on the court. If Republicans do that, they will, of course, be raked across the coals. Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot the liberal media would applaud a Democratic fillibuster to block replacing a liberal Justice with a conservative one.

gut;1781324 wrote:I wonder what happens now, if Repubs can block anyone Obama nominates until after the 2016 election. Crying from the left and right-wing media aside, I don't think it would be wrong for Congress to stubbornly refuse to alter the political balance on the court. If Republicans do that, they will, of course, be raked across the coals. Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot the liberal media would applaud a Democratic fillibuster to block replacing a liberal Justice with a conservative one.

I don't think there would be anything wrong with it either. It would definitely push the balance of the SCOTUS to the top of most important election issues. I bet it is brought up at the debate tonight.

majorspark;1781325 wrote:I don't think there would be anything wrong with it either. It would definitely push the balance of the SCOTUS to the top of most important election issues. I bet it is brought up at the debate tonight.

The SC isn't supposed to lean one direction or the other, anyway. Not supposed to be political, though no less than 6 judges were entirely predictable in cases that had any ideological agenda or implications.

Republicans should draw a line in the sand to make the SC less political and accept nothing less than a down-the-middle, non-political moderate. Same should be done for the next liberal judge to be replaced. Go from roughly 3-3-3 to 2-5-2 and get back to the merits, rather than the politics, of law.

Pretty piss poor timing by Antonin.

One of my Facebook friends is a guy who's pretty much the flagbearer of the Angry/Militant Gay Dude Society. He's pretty much throwing a party all over my timeline right now. :laugh:

I'm pretty disturbed by how many people are celebrating his death. Obviously I didn't share his views, but I can't imagine ever being happy someone died. Kinda perverse to me.

fish82;1781332 wrote: One of my Facebook friends is a guy who's pretty much the flagbearer of the Angry/Militant Gay Dude Society. He's pretty much throwing a party all over my timeline right now. :laugh:

Just point out the coming butthurt [pun intended?] when Senate Repubs refuse to confirm a liberal Justice.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1781338 wrote:I'm pretty disturbed by how many people are celebrating his death. Obviously I didn't share his views, but I can't imagine ever being happy someone died. Kinda perverse to me.

You can disagree with a rigid and strict interpretation of the Constitution, but you can't deny his decisions were usually on-point in that regard.

gut;1781343 wrote:You can disagree with a rigid and strict interpretation of the Constitution, but you can't deny his decisions were usually on-point in that regard.

All I will say he better hope God wanted man to treat minorities, homosexuals, and those without power as less than the majority.

All he needed to do to be eternally with God was believe in Christ. Nothing he said or did on earth would change his fate.

Here's an interesting response from an interview that explained his view on changing societal values. It's not about him treating any person any type of way but rather expecting the law to change if societal values were changing.

""But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asked."That's fine," he answered. "And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution."

gut;1781343 wrote:You can disagree with a rigid and strict interpretation of the Constitution, but you can't deny his decisions were usually on-point in that regard.

Loosely related, but I saw a few people talking about if people were to respect his strict interpretations, they would just treat the nomination process normally, even though it'll bite them on the ideological makeup (because that's not even supposed to matter for a judge if everyone were doing this properly) and not turn into a game (that barring a miracle will just be Hillary choosing it anyway)

Congress should do their job. If the President submits a candidate, the Senate should hear testimony and vote him/her up or down. I'm way over the "governing by not governing" nonsense, and don't much care which side did it first or does it most.

A few SC justices legislate from the bench. If he applied the law as law then he did his job. My guess is that whoever gets put up with be blocked and congress will drag their feet for the next 10 months

Sri Srinavisan was confirmed 97-0 to the D.C. Cirvuit. Obama will find enough Republicans to,confirm him I think.

That's one name being floated around along with Paul Watford, Jeh Johnson, David Barron, Jane Kelly and Patricia Ann Millet.

BoatShoes;1781412 wrote:Sri Srinavisan was confirmed 97-0 to the D.C. Cirvuit. Obama will find enough Republicans to,confirm him I think.

Has he written any opinions in his short time in his current job that makes him ready (or not) for the next step?

He clerked for Sandra Day O'Conner. Isn't that enough?

queencitybuckeye;1781400 wrote:Congress should do their job. If the President submits a candidate, the Senate should hear testimony and vote him/her up or down. I'm way over the "governing by not governing" nonsense, and don't much care which side did it first or does it most.

Exactly. I don't care who is doing what or blaming who, just do your fucking job. Where we are in the election cycle should have zero bearing on appointing this position, regardless of parties involved.

RIP. The man, if I disagreed with what he was saying and arguing, was a Titan on bench. His arguments went at the core of how the Court should interpret the Constitution.

It is kinda sad about the state of politics that no more than 5 minutes after the death people were already lining up on what should be done next.

That said, the President is still in office for 11 more months. He is duty bound by the Constitution to nominate someone. He should and the Senate should at the very least consider them. I don't care for the politics. The President's term does not end in an election year. Regardless of the party, the President should be able to fully do what they need to, and in this case, means putting forth a Supreme Court nominee. And, if they are deemed too left for the Senate, then they can vote them down. But, at the very least, everyone should do their job and make Government actually function as the framers intended.

There's a more and more evidence that the the Court has sadly taken on more legislative authority making the responsibility of the hearings to be a process of acceptance that the impact of a lifetime appointed, pseudo legislator be a person reflective of the people's values. I wish it weren't this way but we aren't going to put the toothpaste back in the tube in 11 months. Our President has even been very clear that he wants justices who will satisfy certain liberal litmus tests. Shouldn't the Senate make sure the nominee reflect their ideological views also then?


If the SCOTUS were an apolitical body and if they were neutrally interpreting a Constitution that does not grant them significant authority to decide as many policy questions as they have been, then their decisions would matter less on the direction of of public policy. I could then understand that it would be reasonable to nominate, confirm and appoint before the next election


That is not the scenario we live in today and I expect the legislative body to exercise their full responsibility in the appointment clause to ensure their desired lifetime Justice is put into place...even if that means blocking or voting in opposition to a nominee.

There are 4 liberal justices that always vote together and now just 2 conservative judges that always vote together.

I hate that it matters, but under no circumstances should a liberal judge be confirmed.

ptown_trojans_1;1781422 wrote:... But, at the very least, everyone should do their job and make Government actually function as the framers intended.

I agree but the framers intended for the assurance of accountability so that an appointment would not be the result of personal agendas and secrets deals.

With that the Senate's has sole authority to reject nominees or refuse to confirm them for any reason. There no restriction on what may be used in making such a decision. It is reasonable to expect that the framers put such power in the Senate's hands so that the President could not appoint someone who had principals in opposition that the of the legislative body.

ptown_trojans_1;1781422 wrote: He is duty bound by the Constitution

So he is going to begin following the Constitution when he is a lame duck?

Al Bundy;1781435 wrote:So he is going to begin following the Constitution when he is a lame duck?

Based on his "in due time" comment, I could see him nominating someone when the Senate has no real chance to consider the nomination, so that the Dems can use it as an issue going forward.

queencitybuckeye;1781436 wrote:Based on his "in due time" comment, I could see him nominating someone when the Senate has no real chance to consider the nomination, so that the Dems can use it as an issue going forward.

Either that or he will use his chance to seat a court member as a defining impact on the country that rivals the ACA as his trophy. Either way we are in an era that our judicial branch acts and is used as political pawns.

Con_Alma;1781437 wrote:Either that or he will use his chance to seat a court member as a defining impact on the country that rivals the ACA as his trophy. Either way we are in an era that our judicial branch acts and is used as political pawns.

Hadn't really thought about that....not just fodder for the Dem campaign, but maybe another way to preserve his legacy if the Dems don't win the POTUS.

But I don't imagine anyone less than a moderate/apolitical type will get confirmed. And that's pretty much exactly what should happen when the parties split the WH and Senate. Obviously Repubs are going to try to drag it out hoping to win the POTUS and then go find another Scalia.