RE: Antonin Scalia found dead at his rance...79 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: Antonin Scalia found dead at his rance...79 (2/14/2016 11:08:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Wonder who Obama will nominate

Conservative politicians are already speaking out and demanding that Obama should not be allowed to select a replacement in his last year as president. This is going to get ugly.

Yeah, I seem to recall another US President in his last year of office whom had a vacancy in the US Supreme Court. That guy was called Ronald Reagan. You know, the guy all the GOP think was right on everything? If its 'OK' for a Republican President to replace a vacancy; its just as 'OK' for a Democratic President to do the same. The GOP really has no excuses here. Its just 'playing politics' as usual.

You must have missed that the vacancy in Reagan's final year started in Reagan's second-to-last year. Justice Lewis Powell retired over the summer of 1987. Reagan nominated Robert Bork, who was destroyed by the Democrats (who held both chambers of congress, btw). Who did Reagan appoint, and what was the Senate's vote?
Anthony Kennedy, 97-0
Any reasonable expectation that President Obama is going to appoint someone who isn't more partisan than Justice Kennedy?

Bork's track record kept him off the supreme court. Not only this: He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment.
He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.
He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.
And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too.
He also said during his hearing: "The 10th amendment of the constitution is about the most dead-letter amendment of all." My father a diehard repub, told me about Bork in a conversation we had "This man thinks he has a right to know how I make love to my wife."


He may not have been a good appointment, but that wasn't the point at all. Reagan appointed Bork, who was destroyed. He was looking at another person (can't recall his name), but he bowed out over admitted previous marijuana use. Kennedy was appointed in November '87.

Reagan attempted to appoint 3 people in 1987, but the Senate vote wasn't held until Feb '88, when the nomination was confirmed. Joether's attempt to link Reagan to a final-year appointment to an Obama final-year appointment isn't exactly apples to apples.

All that being said, I do believe Obama should appoint a new justice, as it is his duty. There is no reason why the current President shouldn't exercise his Constitutionally authorized duties through his last day in office.




Phydeaux -> RE: Antonin Scalia found dead at his rance...79 (2/14/2016 6:14:18 PM)

The destruction of bork in the confirmation lead to a new word in the lexicon - to be borked. Democrats borked Estrada for the Supreme court - the first filibuster of an appeals court justice. Brilliant dude.

Obama could, in principle appoint a supreme court justice while the senate is in session. That appointee would have to be confirmed in the next senate session. The senate has the ability however to declare itself in session.

Obama could try to force a Justice in before Feb 22. The senate would then have to muddy the waters and declare it is in session - which while dubious, would conform to the NLRB decision.

This would provoke two shitstorms. First - Obama trying to force a justice so quickly, at short notice. Second, the senate declaring itself in session.
And then it would go to the courts - either directly to the supreme court with the justice recused, or to the 2nd court of appeal. All that - to net a justice who would still expire at the end of the next senate session.

So the calculus for obama is this:

1. Can I motivate libs to vote by this.
2. Is appointing a short term surpreme court justice is worth the political hit.
3. Does it cause a hit to his legacy.

I think his legacy works better if he just appoints a conservative justice with impeccable credentials. But I'm not betting whether he goes nuclear or not.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125