Antonin Scalia

[imatfaal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35571868

 

News coming in that Scalia has died

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79

 

The supreme court justice Antonin Scalia has died. He was 79.

The supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, the Republican Texas governor Greg Abbott and the US marshals service confirmed that Scalia had died.

In a statement, Roberts said: “On behalf of the court and retired justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away.

“He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the court and the country he so loyally served.”

[iNow]

Last night. In Texas. Cause right now unknown, but reasonable to assume age-related.

 

Republican Presidential candidate and current Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, is already pushing a new talking point that we should disallow Obama from nominating a replacement, saying the senate should block all nominees until the next president is elected and sworn in.

 

Cue the constitutional crisis.

 

Curious what this means for approaching cases to SCOTUS, not the least of which being the challenge against Obamas immigration related executive orders. What happens in a 4-4 tie on that (and others)?

Edited February 13, 2016 by iNow

[imatfaal]

Last night. In Texas. Cause right now unknown, but reasonable to assume age-related.

 

Republican Presidential candidate and current Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, is already pushing a new talking point that we should disallow Obama from nominating a replacement, saying the senate should block all nominees until the next president is elected and sworn in.

 

Cue the constitutional crisis.

 

Curious what this means for approaching cases to SCOTUS, not the least of which being the challenge against Obamas immigration related executive orders. What happens in a 4-4 tie on that (and others)?

 

So are others - with some already threatening not a single Obama appointment will be ratified.

 

He was out quail hunting yesterday - Dick Cheney does have an alibi I guess.

 

Another Liberal Appointment and court was distinctly unlikely to revisit some crucial cases. Which is why Senate Republicans are already drawing battle lines. I would like Obama to in his coolest manner (which let's face he is cooler than any world leader since I don't know when) and with a wide grin go "Yeah - I ain't got no problem with Hillary or Bernie appointing someone"

[iNow]

From one of the blogs in my feed and a source I've trusted for many many years, it seems the ruling of the lower courts stands if there's a 4-4 tie.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/

[imatfaal]

From one of the blogs in my feed and a source I've trusted for many many years, it seems the ruling of the lower courts stands if there's a 4-4 tie.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/

 

Scotusblog / Goldstein is superb and very unlikely to be wrong - I remember getting my supervisor in Public International Law hooked on that blog when we were researching the Guantanamo cases.

[iNow]

I've learned so much reading them.

 

With Scalia out, best case scenario is Obama nominates someone who maybe gets approved by senate in November at earliest, but given current political climate and the presidential campaign, sounds like next president gets this replacement.

 

That could drive much higher voter turnout among conservatives who tend to follow the court much more closely than liberals.

[swansont]

I've learned so much reading them.

With Scalia out, best case scenario is Obama nominates someone who maybe gets approved by senate in November at earliest, but given current political climate and the presidential campaign, sounds like next president gets this replacement.

That could drive much higher voter turnout among conservatives who tend to follow the court much more closely than liberals.

Delaying the nomination or the confirmation would be AFAIK unprecedented (several election-year nominations and approvals). If Obama nominates, wouldn't the Senate have to actually reject? Does the nomination go away at the end of his term?

[overtone]

This is possibly the President best qualified in history to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. Also, it's his job.

 

So mere considerations of good government, without politics intervening, press for a nomination made as soon as at all possible.

 

Some examples of the quality of reasoning of the Justice whose unexpected demise opened up the chair:

 

The dissent in the creation science school case, entire: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

Overview: the law did not violate the establishment clause because the legislators who passed it sincerely believed in the scientific validity of creationism. That sincerity, regardless of the law's actual history or even intended effects, expunged any Constitutional conflicts.

 

And a few misc:

This is an execution, not surgery. Where does that come from, that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain?

I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.

Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.

Edited February 14, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Delaying the nomination or the confirmation would be AFAIK unprecedented (several election-year nominations and approvals). If Obama nominates, wouldn't the Senate have to actually reject? Does the nomination go away at the end of his term?

Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell has already stated we should wait until 2017. Not sure how long they can legally wait in senate.

 

Years ago, I'd have said it was unprecedented and unlikely they'd block it this year. The approach of the congress, senate included, during the Obama term, however, reminds me that obstruction is not a problem nor is precedent needed.

 

The president just held a press conference stating he would nominate someone and expects the senate to act.

 

We're about to hear a whole lot about how the democratic senate spent 7 months blocking the nomination of Robert Bork. Problem is, even if that's a baseline, it still means any Obama nominee should be voted up or down well before the election.

 

Another GOP debate just began. Each candidate is opening by saying Obama should "show some respect" by waiting and nominating nobody, that this is the only decent thing to do so we don't politicize the situation.

 

EDIT: Not sure (yet) what happens to the nomination if no vote takes place before Obama hands over power to his successor. My instincts tell me the nomination stands and it would fall to the senate to vote up/down.

Edited February 14, 2016 by iNow

[rangerx]

Another GOP debate just began. Each candidate is opening by saying Obama should "show some respect" by waiting and nominating nobody, that this is the only decent thing to do so we don't politicize the situation.

 

 

Mitch McConnell was first out of the chute to politicize it. The candidate's assertion to "show some respect" is nonsense. In fact, it shows total disrespect for the constitutional rights of the president.

 

Robert Bork was nominated in an election year, but that didn't stop the Republicans from doing it anyway. Ultimately, Bork was rejected and Justice Kennedy was seated unanimously.

 

Republicans will politicize the shit out of this, ad nauseam. Mark my words.

Edited February 14, 2016 by rangerx

[overtone]

 

 

We're about to hear a whole lot about how the democratic senate spent 7 months blocking the nomination of Robert Bork. Problem is, even if that's a baseline, it still means any Obama nominee should be voted up or down well before the election.

 

Bork was a straight ahead political nomination, without either intellectual qualification or respectable career credentials - he was being rewarded for his services to the Republican Party in abetting Nixon's various extra-legal maneuverings during Watergate, and his political stances regarding Reagan's social and economic agenda.

 

From Wiki: " When Cox issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon, the President initially refused to comply. On Friday, October 19, 1973, Nixon offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise—asking Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office. Since Stennis was famously hard-of-hearing, Cox refused the compromise that same evening and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend.

However, on the following day (a Saturday) Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned.^[4][5]

Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department), to fire Cox. "

All Obama has to do to beat that equivalency is nominate someone either apolitical, or recognized as intellectually capable, or both.

[iNow]

Apolitical, intellectually honest, capable... Doesn't matter. None of it does.

 

Let's be honest here.

 

We all know something a little closer to this is about to go down in the United States for next year+:

 

[Endy0816]

I would have fun with it. Legal eligibility requirements are nonexistent.

[hoola]

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD...

[Ten oz]

Antonia Scalia was very influential. Clearance Thomas in particular seldom ever votes opposite. Without Scalia there to seed arguments we may not get many of the 4-4 rulings many assume are coming. Despite it being John Roberts court Scalia was the leader on the conservative wing. That wing is staunchly conservative without him. Thomas is silent during oral arguments so it is highly unlikely he picks up the mantle while Samual Alito generally piggy backed off of concepts presented by Scalia. I assume Roberts will now be the conservative lead and he has already shown himslef to be more moderate than was Scalia.

 

I do not believe either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump can win the White House. Nor do they have support within the establishment of the Republican party. I suspect the Senate to initially block Obama's nominee but who wins the GOP nomination will determine for how long they block that nominee. I don't believe the GOP establishment wastes a year fighting with the White House if Trump or Cruz are the nominee; no point. If Cruz or Trump wins the primary I predict a senate compromise to break the filibuster shortly after theconvention. If it is Rubio or Bush win the Senate will fight harder and no deals get made.

[iNow]

A nice write up of possible successors and the political realities of each: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/

 

Their money us on Loretta Lynch, recently appointed as AG after Eric Holder.

[neutrinosalad]

A nice write up of possible successors and the political realities of each: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/

 

Their money us on Loretta Lynch, recently appointed as AG after Eric Holder.

 

If Obama is a man of his word and is someone who will rise above the party lines, he will pick Sri Srinavasan. Mr. Goldstein himself said that he is the most qualified man for the job, so he is the one who should be chosen.

 

We need to start making decisions based on qualifications, not based on political strategy.

[iNow]

If Sri is most qualified and gets blocked due to political strategies, then Obama just wasted his best pick. There is no progress based on qualifications if strategy isn't factored in.

[swansont]

If Sri is most qualified and gets blocked due to political strategies, then Obama just wasted his best pick. There is no progress based on qualifications if strategy isn't factored in.

 

Or he makes the GOP look bad for diddling around. The pick is only wasted if the pick is rejected, and perhaps not even then, since the next president could nominate the same person with a new senate. There should be enough time to nominate and confirm, but perhaps not enough for twice if there's a nomination, delay, and then rejection.

[Ten oz]

If Sri is most qualified and gets blocked due to political strategies, then Obama just wasted his best pick. There is no progress based on qualifications if strategy isn't factored in.

Some gamesmanship may be required here. This is politics after all. Obama may need to nominate someone like Sri knowing that they will be blocked then pull the nomination, giving the Senate GOP a win, and then nominate somenone like Lynch who then gets confirmed. Think Robert Bork. After Bork was rejected Anthony Kennedy got a unanimous vote.

[iNow]

We need to start making decisions based on qualifications, not based on political strategy.

If Sri is most qualified and gets blocked due to political strategies, then Obama just wasted his best pick. There is no progress based on qualifications if strategy isn't factored in.

Or he makes the GOP look bad for diddling around. The pick is only wasted if the pick is rejected, and perhaps not even then, since the next president could nominate the same person with a new senate.

Some gamesmanship may be required here. This is politics after all. Obama may need to nominate someone like Sri knowing that they will be blocked then pull the nomination, giving the Senate GOP a win, and then nominate somenone like Lynch who then gets confirmed.

All good points.

 

I hadn't thought about the idea of nominating the same person twice, either. While technically possible, I suspect the administration would prefer to avoid the optics of such a move ("here goes Obama once again playing king, acting like the dictator he is by ignoring the feedback of the senate on his nominee... just forcing the nominee down the throats of the american people despite their rejection," or "this clearly shows the dearth of qualified democratic judges and the weakness of the liberal bench... why didn't they nominate someone who hadn't already been rejected... because they couldn't! they clearly have nobody better! Stupid liberals. Can't even select a qualified judge, why should we believe them when they think the government can take care of the poor or run healthcare..."

 

Regardless (and caricatures aside), my core point was that qualification is clearly important, but to ignore the equal importance of strategy and avoid laser-like focus on the best ways to get your nominee approved by senate... especially in this current political reality... is well intentioned, but IMO naive and misguided.

 

Qualification alone is required, but not sufficient.

[overtone]

The actual qualifications for Supreme Court Justice are not obvious. It's not at all the same job as regular judge, even less is lawyer a solid recommendation, and political involvement might even be negative similar to criminal involvement.

 

What you want is wisdom. Including the wisdom to hire a hotshot clerk who can write your decisions up with impressive scholarship and airtight legal logic.

 

Or as Scalia put it, in one of those odd turns of phrase he would write that were deeper than he was capable of following up: Why would you want nine lawyers interpreting the Constitution?

Edited February 15, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

One of the most interesting ideas I've heard (and this came up as a discussion item even before Scalias passing) is that the next president could nominate President Obama to the SCOTUS.

[Phi for All]

One of the most interesting ideas I've heard (and this came up as a discussion item even before Scalias passing) is that the next president could nominate President Obama to the SCOTUS.

 

An even better idea is for Obama to nominate himself. That way a lot of extremist conservatives die from head explosions, and the gridlock ends.

[Ten oz]

One of the most interesting ideas I've heard (and this came up as a discussion item even before Scalias passing) is that the next president could nominate President Obama to the SCOTUS.

Obama doesn't want it. He has already addressed the suggestion.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/267360-wh-obama-doesnt-want-supreme-court-appointment