I agree thats what would happen, but its totally incorrect as to what should happen Having 9 justices is an integral part of democracy. Regardless of who is in the White House, the way the process works is that they get to pick, and that is the way it should be. It is absolutely the duty of all elected officials in DC to get this thing figured out as soon as possible. This is bigger than petty dem/repub b****ing Its gonna be hard to not approve Sri Srinivasan Not to mention whoever is the next prez is very likely going to have the chance to replace Ginsburg and Kennedy + possibly Breyer.
Apparently the White House has rejected making an appointment during the current recess. The benefit of having an extra justice on their side during an interim period outweighs the harm of looking sneaky. The White House should, and will, at least give the Senate an opportunity to approve or obstruct a candidate rather than just giving the Senate the finger right away. I think this is also the smarter political strategy-- as I said, if Obama submits a reasonable candidate, Senate GOP will most likely either have to piss off their own base (by approving any candidate at all) or help motivate turnout on the Democratic side to a greater extent than on the GOP side. BTW, this is one of the guys said to be on the short list, 9th Circuit Judge Paul Watford. Looks like Shane Battier's brother.
That appointment would only last until the end of the congressional session and would be HUGE in getting out the Republican vote very likely leading to the seat being officially given to a pretty far right conservative for life. It would be a pretty stupid move.
Pretty much. If the shoe were on the other foot, and we had a liberal majority SC for the last generation, and we were in danger of losing that and also a hypothetical dem majority in the Senate, yeah, I'd want them to obstruct. The ramifications of this can't be overstated, and replacing Scalia with a left or center-left justice would have effects of equal or greater importance than one or two presidential elections. It could shift the SC to a progressive/liberal majority for ten, twenty, or more years. Unlike many other bull**** fights on Capitol Hill, this one will be a war because it's important enough to be. I just hope some of the repubs remember this when they tout how much they looove the constitution. Rolleyes.
Judge Watford would be a superb appointment. He meets every qualification, being thoroughly vetted during his confirmation process to become 9th Circuit Judge, and blocking his appointment would reek of partisan politics by the Republican Party. I would be happy to see a Justice Watford on the bench of the Supreme Court. In my humble opinion, so would the nation.
I don't think so - the reality is that the rabid conservatives (like yourself) who would take offense to this move are already going to be voting. Nobody who would oppose Obama's appointment is staying home this election. Meanwhile, the Democrats can use the recess appointment as a rallying cry - remind all the independent voters who tend to lean left on the social issues that are the SC hot buttons what's at stake. This would be particularly effective if the recess appointment were a minority. However, it appears to be a moot point.
senate has authority to not take up a nomination, and voters can reward/punish them accordingly for doing so
What is the basis for this claim? Bernie vs Clinton is a much bigger thing than the other side. Democrats seem more fired up for the election to me so I assume you are basing this on more than nothing.
It's very likely based on "hope" or something similar. He likely doesn't want to believe what I said, so he's trying to convince himself that I'm wrong. Getting to make this election about a SC appointment and the fate of numerous court cases is EXACTLY what the Republicans would love to do. That would allow them to make this election about protecting the 2nd amendment or any number of issues that would likely be affected by shifting the balance of the SC.
republicans better hope something gets out the vote. right now dems have had more votes than repubs 5 out of the last 6 elections. if the dems come out on top this time it will be 6 out of 7. if the dems win the white house again and appoint the 2 judges that will likely get replaced in the next 4 years what happens at that point 6 liberal and 3 conservative??
Well I'd imagine that they'd shred the Constitution further.....which is exactly what will motivate conservatives and moderates to vote Republican in order to prevent that....so long as the Republicans don't embarrass themselves by nominating Trump. The Democrats currently have a walking disaster of a candidate in Hillary and an old Socialist, neither of those are going to generate a large turnout though Sanders would likely get an above average turnout of the young vote if Hillary gets knocked out due to either the scandal involving her charity where she was selling influence while Secretary of State or from the crimes she committed when handling classified information. As a Libertarian, I don't really have a candidate in this race now that Rand is out, but since I stand for civil liberties, I certainly wouldn't want the court to shift to the left and put those liberties at risk. The right leaning court was doing a pretty good job especially recently, I'd hate for a different court to screw that up.
If Hillary and Bernie are in fact candidates who have problem generating big turnouts, the more reason for the Dems to put the Supreme Court justice on the ballot. Make the nominee someone attractive and tending to generate turnout. In fact, Hillary or Bernie can take the Supreme Court nominee on the road with them to campaign.
wut? This is the oddest argument I've ever heard. Scalia argued against a generalized right to privacy, said that legal sodomy led to legal incest, adultery and bestiality, argued that Miranda rights could be taken away by Congress, said torture was constitutional, and gutted the Voting Rights Act. Is your definition of civil rights basically restricted to the 2nd Amendment? If civil liberties is your thing, I'm not exactly sure why you would like Scalia and how anybody could be worse on those positions? The man compared NSA metadata collection to getting checked by the TSA, and basically said the Supreme Court could not "understand it"--if you're a true Paulite as you claim you should be appalled and shocked.
A lot do anyway but I think the likely Republican nominee will be Rubio, who is a very attractive candidate to moderates. Certainly more so than an old Socialist or Hillary if she's still eligible to be president by the time the election gets here. On top of that, I don't think true moderates would want the Supreme Court shifting sharply to the left....which is what would likely happen if Bernie or Hillary were elected. I just don't see that working for them. We'll see. You are making a baseless assumption that I was a big fan of Scalia, it's probably best if you wouldn't do that. I said that I would not be in favor of the court shifting to the left, not that I'm some kind of big fan of Scalia.
Senate has the authority to confirm or not confirm the nominee. Saying you won't even do that, but instead just not allow a process is in my eyes completely unconstitutional and would make the founding fathers shake their heads. Except that when the situation was reversed the Dems confirmed Roberts and ceded control of the SC from a liberal court to a conservative one.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, especially since it doesn't yet have the Libertarian candidate on here yet, but if voting for a Libertarian candidate is what matters to you, the GOP is probably not the place to look.
No, I'm making an assumption based on what you said that you don't want anybody to the "left" of Scalia on these positions (???) Scalia is consistently rated, in every index, as the most right-wing judge on SCOTUS, so I don't know, do you want somebody who doubles down on his positions? or do you want a fantasy candidate that combines say, Ginsburg's position on civil liberties in general with his positions on religious liberty and the Second Amendment? ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International_USA (note the dissents, note the majority). Really, what you said, especially the part where you said this court has been great for civil liberties just mystifies me--it has been great despite the right wing and not because of it if it was "great" at all. Thank the lord for Justice Kennedy, who is left-of-center to Justice Scalia (but who wasn't?)
LOL, hilarious. If you are looking at only the 2 major parties, the GOP is pretty much the only place you'd hope to find a Libertarian.....unfortunately there aren't any acceptable candidates left on either side now that Rand is out, and he was by no means a perfect candidate. Now it is true that you don't find many Libertarian politicians in either major party, the Democrats are far too fiscally irresponsible and they will always put their love of government power over civil liberties when it comes down to it. When it comes to the Republicans, you find way too many that are socially irresponsible and the idea of what religion has to say about an issue often gets in the way of civil liberties.....and they aren't fiscally responsible enough. Both parties have their flaws, which is why I don't belong to either, but it's pretty clear that one is more flawed than the other.
