Antonin Scalia passes away

[CrimsonWeltall]

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.

 

Right, because they're actually checking over the qualifications of the candidate and how he/she might perform as a Justice. That's not what's going on here.

 

I said in my first post on this it was dumb of McConnell to come out and say he wouldn't confirm anyone.

 

McConnell said it and the Presidential Candidates are supporting it. That's what the complaint is. If Obama nominates some far-left crackpot and they want to reject him or her, fine. That is their job. Checks and balances are to prevent people from f***ing up their job, not to prevent them from doing their job at all until you can get your buddy into office.

[CrimsonWeltall]

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

 

Obama already said he wasn't going to make a recess appointment.

[EvilMonkey]

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

Doesn't matter. They outright came out and said 'you don't get any more appointments'. Pure politics.

[bmags]

Doesn't matter. They outright came out and said 'you don't get any more appointments'. Pure politics.

 

That article says recess appointments.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

That is a specific issue and I was being more general. In US v. Texas Obama didn't just tell Homeland Security to stop arresting illegals, he was trying to include adults in the classification that normally applied to children under a certain program. He was expanding the law, not refusing to enforce it. There was also a notice requirement that they failed to abide by, so they, arguably, violated the law. And you're right, there's a question as to whether the states even have standing to stop him.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Doesn't matter. They outright came out and said 'you don't get any more appointments'. Pure politics.

 

They said "no more recess appointments", not "no more appointments". That's not even close to being the same thing.

[bmags]

That is a specific issue and I was being more general. In US v. Texas Obama didn't just tell Homeland Security to stop arresting illegals, he was trying to include adults in the classification that normally applied to children under a certain program. He was expanding the law, not refusing to enforce it. There was also a notice requirement that they failed to abide by, so they, arguably, violated the law. And you're right, there's a question as to whether the states even have standing to stop him.

 

Right, but it was expanding his 2012 guidance that advised not to deport children, which was challenged by the courts and lost. What other items beside immigration is he refusing to enforce?

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, but it was expanding his 2012 guidance that advised not to deport children, which was challenged by the courts and lost. What other items beside immigration is he refusing to enforce?

 

Drugs, for one. But i'm not saying he's wrong there.

 

My only point was a President can similarly interrupt the democratic process, much in the same way the GOP is threatening to do. Just because a stay was initially ordered and the issue is being litigated doesn't mean it's not happening (i'm not confident at all that we're protecting the border as well as we could)/won't happen. Obama has recourse just like Congress does - they can sue and get the court to determine whether X action is in violation of the constitution.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm saying our government has a much better process to deal with it. Whereas for senate never confirming everyone, it would basically be recess appointing everybody.

[Balta1701]

Drugs, for one. But i'm not saying he's wrong there.

 

My only point was a President can similarly interrupt the democratic process, much in the same way the GOP is threatening to do. Just because a stay was initially ordered and the issue is being litigated doesn't mean it's not happening (i'm not confident at all that we're protecting the border as well as we could)/won't happen. Obama has recourse just like Congress does - they can sue and get the court to determine whether X action is in violation of the constitution.

And it gets to the supreme court and a 4-4 decision kicks it back to the Appeals court

[StrangeSox]

I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm saying our government has a much better process to deal with it. Whereas for senate never confirming everyone, it would basically be recess appointing everybody.

Except then you just get pro forma sessions and thanks to Noel canning nobody can actually be appointed.

[Balta1701]

Except then you just get pro forma sessions and thanks to Noel canning nobody can actually be appointed.

I know! We just find an appeals court to overturn that! Since the Supreme court is then nonfunctional we'll be able to recess appointment again!

 

(Sadly, that would actually be a very good thing for the country, but that's never the priority).

[greg775]

How can any Republicans dismiss Obama's likely pick of Srinivasan when it was 92-0 vote for him to land his current position? He's worked for Republicans as well as Democrats. The guy is a slam dunk choice and no way the Republicans can/should block him.

[farmteam]

How can any Republicans dismiss Obama's likely pick of Srinivasan when it was 92-0 vote for him to land his current position? He's worked for Republicans as well as Democrats. The guy is a slam dunk choice and no way the Republicans can/should block him.

Kelly was a unanimous choice as well.

[Jenksismyhero]

In fairness, those were for circuit court positions. A bit different from the SC. But still, they should at least consider the name before coming out and saying they'll reject anyone.

[pettie4sox]

In fairness, those were for circuit court positions. A bit different from the SC. But still, they should at least consider the name before coming out and saying they'll reject anyone.

 

They just need to vet the guy which is their job. I hope the voters make these clowns pay for their obstructionism if they continuously block for no reason other than, "Obama".

[farmteam]

In fairness, those were for circuit court positions. A bit different from the SC. But still, they should at least consider the name before coming out and saying they'll reject anyone.

I thought of that distinction, but I honestly don't think it's enough to make a difference.

 

I can't think of anything that would disqualify someone from SCOTUS that would not disqualify them for a Court of Appeals position.

[Balta1701]

I thought of that distinction, but I honestly don't think it's enough to make a difference.

 

I can't think of anything that would disqualify someone from SCOTUS that would not disqualify them for a Court of Appeals position.

The Republicans in the Senate have basically decided that those courts need fewer people over the last year. Said so publicly, at least in the case of the DC one.

[Texsox]

I want our government to work and function properly. It seems like those in favor of stalling until the next election view the government as us and them. Function first, we'll debate the specifics as we go. But geez if we can't even function and follow the process, we're really screwed.

[StrangeSox]

Senate Judiciary Republicans Vow No Hearing for Supreme Court Nominee

 

edit: how long could this hypothetically go on before it would provoke some sort of Constitutional crisis? If let's say Clinton wins but the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, can they keep up this same line indefinitely? There's no mechanisms in place to force them to do anything, and if their base will reward obstruction or heavily punish any sort of compromise, there's not really any political pressure to act differently.

Edited February 24, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Barack Obama published a statement on SCOTUSBlog.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

 

It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make. Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

 

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly. It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum. And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

 

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

 

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

 

But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

 

A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.

[cabiness42]

Senate Judiciary Republicans Vow No Hearing for Supreme Court Nominee

 

edit: how long could this hypothetically go on before it would provoke some sort of Constitutional crisis? If let's say Clinton wins but the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, can they keep up this same line indefinitely? There's no mechanisms in place to force them to do anything, and if their base will reward obstruction or heavily punish any sort of compromise, there's not really any political pressure to act differently.

 

Probably the same thing the sitting VP should have thought about when he said basically the same thing back in 1992, and similar to what the sitting President said in 2008. They didn't seem to worried about it then.

[StrangeSox]

They weren't facing an actual event, and that's not really responsive to what I asked.

[StrangeSox]

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

 

[jasonxctf]

BTW, I love the gamemanship here with NV Republican Gov Brian Sandoval. He's being "vetted" and I hope Obama puts him up.

 

The game is... hey Repub's, here's my choice. He's a moderate, Republican. That's the best you are going to get. Take it, or enjoy the Hillary pick next year. That pick, wont be so moderate.