Antonin Scalia passes away

[Jenksismyhero]

2008 Chuck Schumer: We must oppose any Bush SC nominee

 

2016 Chuck Schumer: The Republicans are horrible for saying that they should oppose any Obama SC nominee

 

Go f*** yourself, Chuck.

 

Yeah, anyone upset at Repubs over this are just fooling themselves. Flip the switch and they'd be doing the same thing. That's their right. They get to confirm an appointment. That's how the rules were set up. There's nothing unfair or unethical about it.

 

I will say it was dumb of McConnell to come out right away and say we won't confirm anyone before Obama has said a name. They'll look really stupid if Obama appoints one of the recent judges that were confirmed unanimously.

 

As to Scalia, he was one of my favorite Justices ever and he was just flat out brilliant. Two key things that the SC will miss going forward - (1) someone who can write opinions with humor and not have their head up their ass, and (2) the basic premise that the legislature legislates for the people and 9 people in robes do not. Was he 100% consistent over his tenure? No. But no justice is. He was consistent for the vast majority of his opinions and that's the best you can do.

[Balta1701]

(2) the basic premise that the legislature legislates for the people and 9 people in robes do not. Was he 100% consistent over his tenure? No. But no justice is. He was consistent for the vast majority of his opinions and that's the best you can do.

 

[pettie4sox]

Damn Jenks. You are setting yourself up there.

[pettie4sox]

See the D and R just don't matter. They are all playing for one team and trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

 

It's quite laughable.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Yeah, anyone upset at Repubs over this are just fooling themselves. Flip the switch and they'd be doing the same thing. That's their right. They get to confirm an appointment. That's how the rules were set up. There's nothing unfair or unethical about it.

 

Democrats hypothetically being hypocritical over the matter doesn't mean it isn't unfair or unethical. The Senate's job is to filter out bad candidates, not completely block the President's responsibility to nominate people. Can an opposition party categorically refuse to confirm anyone over a 4, or 8, year term?

[Balta1701]

Democrats hypothetically being hypocritical over the matter doesn't mean it isn't unfair or unethical. The Senate's job is to filter out bad candidates, not completely block the President's responsibility to nominate people. Can an opposition party categorically refuse to confirm anyone over a 4, or 8, year term?

Technically the Senate seems to have the right to just decide to do that.

 

The reality though is that if they do so, then all of the cases where the Supreme Court was going to totally rewrite the law this year with 5-4 decisions wind up 4-4 ties and since they would have been fundamentally rewriting the laws, most of the Appeals Courts hadn't ruled in favor of the things the Conservative majority was likely to do. That means the Appeals court rulings will stand because the Supreme Court is now denied the ability to write laws 5-4.

 

For example, they were likely to rewrite the "one person, one vote" standard. They were likely to destroy public sector unions, that won't happen. They were likely to declare affirmative action illegal - that won't happen. They were likely to declare that you couldn't force any insurer to provide coverage for contraception - that won't happen.

[bmags]

We are talking about basically 2 sessions with 8 justices.

 

Regardless of party, the confirmation tactics have gotten out of control. Senate needs to re-do their rules so appointments have to be voted on. They can even do "requires 60 threshold", but they have to be voted on.

[Balta1701]

We are talking about basically 2 sessions with 8 justices.

 

Regardless of party, the confirmation tactics have gotten out of control. Senate needs to re-do their rules so appointments have to be voted on. They can even do "requires 60 threshold", but they have to be voted on.

This was perhaps the top "ignored" recommendation of the 911 commission - that there were way too many positions being confirmed by a Senate that no longer moved fast enough, such that the government couldn't respond to a crisis for about 6 months ever 8 years. You don't just have to confirm cabinet level officials, you have to confirm all their deputies and underlings - Most estimates put the total number of positions requiring senate confirmation as between 1200 and 1400 depending on how you count a few that they streamlined about 5 years ago.

 

At the very least for most of those it should be allowable that the President installs someone and then the Senate gets to vote against them if they want. This has been a major problem the last 2 administrations - in 2001 it hurt the government's ability to respond to increasing terror warnings and in 2009 Tim Geithner was dealing with the 2nd half of the TARP bailouts with a skeleton crew staff. You want to shut down the Senate over the Supreme Court, fine at least that's at the level where it should happen. The length of time Circuit Court and District Court nominees wait for approval has on average doubled for this administration compared to the last - those seats now sit open for about a half year even after there is a nominee for them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Democrats hypothetically being hypocritical over the matter doesn't mean it isn't unfair or unethical. The Senate's job is to filter out bad candidates, not completely block the President's responsibility to nominate people. Can an opposition party categorically refuse to confirm anyone over a 4, or 8, year term?

 

Yes, they can. That's their power under the Appointment Clause. What's the point of having that power if they're supposed to just rubber stamp whoever the President picks?

[bmags]

Rubber stamping whomever the president picks != refusing to vote on ANY appointment from president. If you were designing a government, nobody in their right mind design anything that way. That argument is the equivelant of "we should destroy the US system of government because it allows us to".

 

All the republicans had to do was hold up anyone actually appointed. By premptively refusing they are, again, setting a precedent that our democracy cannot function under ideological parties.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Yes, they can. That's their power under the Appointment Clause. What's the point of having that power if they're supposed to just rubber stamp whoever the President picks?

 

Of course they CAN. That doesn't make it fair or ethical. No one is asking them to be rubber stampers, but they've made it clear they don't even CARE who the nominee is. It's cowardly bulls***.

[Jenksismyhero]

So when a President refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress, that's....good governance? Unfair/unethical? Setting a precedent that our democracy cannot function under ideological parties?

[bmags]

There are actually processes in place to deal with that. There is no overriding the Senate refusing the vote on hundreds of appointees. Notice that Obama's executive action on immigration went up through the courts, as did the EPA changes. So, good luck with #bothsides-ing this.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So when a President refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress, that's....good governance? Unfair/unethical? Setting a precedent that our democracy cannot function under ideological parties?

 

If Obama said he would veto every single bill passed by Congress regardless of content, and there was nothing they could do about it, that would be bad governance. And unfair. And unethical.

 

The GOP Senate is basically saying that the ability to appoint Justices is theirs, not the President's.

[jasonxctf]

So when a President refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress, that's....good governance? Unfair/unethical? Setting a precedent that our democracy cannot function under ideological parties?

 

"refusing to enforce" and "choosing not to enforce" are two different things. If a police officer doesnt issue me a speeding ticket, is he refusing to enforce the law, or choosing to not enforce it?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There are actually processes in place to deal with that. There is no overriding the Senate refusing the vote on hundreds of appointees. Notice that Obama's executive action on immigration went up through the courts, as did the EPA changes. So, good luck with #bothsides-ing this.

 

No there's not. He's choosing not to deport scores of illegal immigrants. That's his non-action. The states/congress can't force him to tell his officers to enforce those laws. No court decision is going to change that. His attempt to change rules via executive action have been challenged by the states, that's the only process in place. He can ask the courts to review the power the Senate has in the Appointment Clause if he'd like, but it's pretty cut and dry.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

"refusing to enforce" and "choosing not to enforce" are two different things. If a police officer doesnt issue me a speeding ticket, is he refusing to enforce the law, or choosing to not enforce it?

 

Distinction without a difference in this situation. If Congress passes law X and the President either refuses or chooses not to enforce it, the result is the same- the democratic process as dictated by our Constitution is interrupted.

[Jenksismyhero]

If Obama said he would veto every single bill passed by Congress regardless of content, and there was nothing they could do about it, that would be bad governance. And unfair. And unethical.

 

The GOP Senate is basically saying that the ability to appoint Justices is theirs, not the President's.

 

No, they can't offer up names to be confirmed. They can't choose anyone unilaterally.

[bmags]

No there's not. He's choosing not to deport scores of illegal immigrants. That's his non-action. The states/congress can't force him to tell his officers to enforce those laws. No court decision is going to change that. His attempt to change rules via executive action have been challenged by the states, that's the only process in place. He can ask the courts to review the power the Senate has in the Appointment Clause if he'd like, but it's pretty cut and dry.

 

You are wrong.

[CrimsonWeltall]

No, they can't offer up names to be confirmed. They can't choose anyone unilaterally.

 

Of course they can offer up names. "Scalia Jr is the only person we'll approve. Nominate him or we vote no." They've hijacked how the process is supposed to work, out of pure partisanship.

 

Granted, the Senate being hard-asses about nominees of a President of the opposite party isn't new to Obama's tenure, but this flat out refusal to confirm ANYONE he nominates is ridiculous.

[Jenksismyhero]

You are wrong.

 

Good response.

[EvilMonkey]

August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

 

yeah, because only one side plays politics with the courts. This crap been going on forever.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...s-appointments/

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course they can offer up names. "Scalia Jr is the only person we'll approve. Nominate him or we vote no." They've hijacked how the process is supposed to work, out of pure partisanship.

 

Granted, the Senate being hard-asses about nominees of a President of the opposite party isn't new to Obama's tenure, but this flat out refusal to confirm ANYONE he nominates is ridiculous.

 

Let's see how long this lasts. It's not as if nominees for the SC have never been rejected before, even over a decent length of time (months and months). IIRC Reagan had one rejected after a bunch of hearings and several months.

 

I said in my first post on this it was dumb of McConnell to come out and say he wouldn't confirm anyone. I can't really say that's "unfair" or "unethical" when that's the authority they were granted though.

[bmags]

Good response.

 

You are. I don't know what else to say. Your contention that the supreme court cannot reverse the DAPA guidance of the Obama administration is false. It will be on the 2016 docket and a stay was issued last year.

[bmags]

August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

 

yeah, because only one side plays politics with the courts. This crap been going on forever.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...s-appointments/

 

K we aren't talking about Recess appointments. I would not recommend Obama put a recess appointment on Supreme Court.