The fight to nominate Scalia's replacement

[ordnance11]

The news that Scalia was dead was just minutes old when Mitch McConnel stated the next president should pick his successor. The rationale is a precedent when a Supreme Court justice dies, a lame duck president should leave it to his successor. The problem with that rational is that letting 11 months go without a successor would be inexcusable imo. Whatever decisions the current court would make would only apply to those jurisdictions the appellate court has made the decisions and would probably have to be litigated again. There is a short list of compromise judges that Obama could advance.

So the thinking among the GOP it's better to have a President Rubio/Bush make the decision than a President Obama. The flip side? A President Clinton or Sanders could put forward a nomination a true liberal. Especially if the Senate flips again. So it's a risky gamble for the GOP.

This is a mallet the Democrats to bludgeon the GOP with. Here's an example of GOP intransigence. What's going to be done with it?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

Questions

1: is there any legal Precedent to have the situation wait for practically a year to be resolved? I know of none and unless there is some legal reason for doing so i don't think they legally can put it off that long. Now they can hold the appointment up in committee and on the floor for the year, but that may cost them the election.

2: what reason do you have to think that its going to be Rubio or Bush and not Cruz or Trump. I mean yeah, they have the "establishment" vote, maybe, but the damn country is pissed at the establishment and this is leading to higher numbers showing up for Cruz and Trump.
 

[Black Aeronaut]

Which is why I think Obama needs to get a new Justice appointed as soon as possible. As the Republican party is right now, I do not trust them controlling all three branches of the Federal Government.

[robkelk]

First:
The family of Justice Scalia has my sympathies in their time of loss.

Second:
Refresh my memory, please: Does the President get to name an appointee all on his own, or does the appointment need to be confirmed by Congress?

If it's the latter, what's to keep Congress from dragging their heels for a year and then saying the proposed appointee is unacceptable? (Other than the weight of public opinion, that is.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[khagler]

robkelk wrote:

---

First:
The family of Justice Scalia has my sympathies in their time of loss.

Second:
Refresh my memory, please: Does the President get to name an appointee all on his own, or does the appointment need to be confirmed by Congress?

If it's the latter, what's to keep Congress from dragging their heels for a year and then saying the proposed appointee is unacceptable? (Other than the weight of public opinion, that is.)

The appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate, not the entire Congress.Nothing keeps the Senate from dragging their feet, and I expect both parties to eagerly do just that in order to use the appointment for propaganda purposes leading up to the next big game. By keeping the seat empty, they can use "vote for us or The Others will get to nominate Scalia's replacement and life as we know it will end in a fiery apocalypse" to get people who don't care which horrible dirtbag candidate wins. Not only that, but establishment candidates can use it in the playoffs before the big game to say things like "you have to support Clinton/Rubio/Kasich because Sanders/Trump/Cruz can't win the general election, and if you don't support them you're giving the Supreme Court seat to The Others."

[ordnance11]

khagler wrote:

---

robkelk wrote:

---

First:
The family of Justice Scalia has my sympathies in their time of loss.

Second:
Refresh my memory, please: Does the President get to name an appointee all on his own, or does the appointment need to be confirmed by Congress?

If it's the latter, what's to keep Congress from dragging their heels for a year and then saying the proposed appointee is unacceptable? (Other than the weight of public opinion, that is.)

The appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate, not the entire Congress.Nothing keeps the Senate from dragging their feet, and I expect both parties to eagerly do just that in order to use the appointment for propaganda purposes leading up to the next big game. By keeping the seat empty, they can use "vote for us or The Others will get to nominate Scalia's replacement and life as we know it will end in a fiery apocalypse" to get people who don't care which horrible dirtbag candidate wins. Not only that, but establishment candidates can use it in the playoffs before the big game to say things like "you have to support Clinton/Rubio/Kasich because Sanders/Trump/Cruz can't win the general election, and if you don't support them you're giving the Supreme Court seat to The Others."

The problem I see with that scenario is if Cruz or Trump gets the GOP nomination. The DNC campaign slogan becomes "Vote for the crook/geezer..it's that important."
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Rajvik wrote:

---

Questions

1: is there any legal Precedent to have the situation wait for practically a year to be resolved? I know of none and unless there is some legal reason for doing so i don't think they legally can put it off that long. Now they can hold the appointment up in committee and on the floor for the year, but that may cost them the election.

2: what reason do you have to think that its going to be Rubio or Bush and not Cruz or Trump. I mean yeah, they have the "establishment" vote, maybe, but the damn country is pissed at the establishment and this is leading to higher numbers showing up for Cruz and Trump.

For number one: I haven't heard of one either.

As for number two: Well, one or the other may very well win the GOP nomination, but the general election? A senator whose greatest achievement to date is to shut down the government. Therefore making him qualified to lead it. And let us not go into the other guy.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

actually the thing is about the government shutdown is the congress (both houses) pass the budget, and then the President decides to go with it or not, now he is supposed to send them his budget "request" by the begining of February, but they are not beholden to act on it. He can veto the budget but then its him shutting down the government, not the congress, its him being pedantic about not getting what he wants, not the other way around. and quite frankly the people are tired of business as usual, so i think there is a good chance of either of them getting the general election, and if they run together, then they have a damn good chance of winning if they can ever sort out which of them will be president and which will be vice.
 

[Black Aeronaut]

Nah, Rajvik. Cruze pushed the matter. The simple fact of the matter is that there was no way for us to operate in the black with everything we had on our plates back then - not unless you wanted to pull the plug on a lot of things we needed.

President Obama's message was simple: You, the voice of a minority, do not get to hold the Nation hostage over something we can't do anything about without doing great harm to ourselves. The only reason Cruze hasn't been recalled is because... Well, Texas, you know? Home of the ridiculously gerrymandered Republican supermajority. (And if you think our districts aren't gerrymandered, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!)

[ordnance11]

To BA:

If Cruz doesn't get the nomination or wins the general election, what are the odds of him getting re-elected to the Senate?

If Bernie loses the nomination, I believe it will increase his stature in the Senate, when he goes back into it. If HRC loses, that's it for her.

Rubio is not running for re-election. Rand Paul? Who knows? He may decide to stay in or he may decide to drop out.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

As horribly gerrymandered as our voting districts are, Cruz will get his senate seat back, no problem.

[Jinx999]

The congressonal districts are gerrymandered to hell.
IIRC, the senate districts are the states themselves, so aren't susceptable to gerrymandering.

[khagler]

Jinx999 wrote:

---

The congressonal districts are gerrymandered to hell.
IIRC, the senate districts are the states themselves, so aren't susceptable to gerrymandering.

That's correct. Hopefully Black Aeronaut knows that and is just engaging in tribal signaling.

[Rajvik]

Alright, i did a little research and checking and here is things as i understand them.

1: The President can nominate whomever he pleases
2: The Senate must confirm or deny any nomination
3: There is no time frame to which the consideration of the nominee must be done within
4: Both sides have now held each others arguments, (2006 Chuck Schumer said to hold off until after the '08 elections and Mitch McConnel wanted nominations immediately, now the roles are reversed)
5: All the presidential hopefuls are already using the need to choose the seat as an argument for people to vote for them.
 

[ordnance11]

Rajvik wrote:

---

Alright, i did a little research and checking and here is things as i understand them.

1: The President can nominate whomever he pleases
2: The Senate must confirm or deny any nomination
3: There is no time frame to which the consideration of the nominee must be done within
4: Both sides have now held each others arguments, (2006 Chuck Schumer said to hold off until after the '08 elections and Mitch McConnel wanted nominations immediately, now the roles are reversed)
5: All the presidential hopefuls are already using the need to choose the seat as an argument for people to vote for them.

Add this tidbit:
By McConnell stating that the next president should pick the next justice, he wasn't talking about a President Clinton or Sanders. His magical thinking is that it would be Republican president who would be doing the nominating.
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Foxboy]

Another point: Any Tea Party senators that got in during Obama's First Mid-term are looking at re-election woes now, whether from more moderate Republicans who want the seat, or the Dems.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[ordnance11]

The Washington Post did suggest that in the case of Mitch McConnell. Old snapping turtlle mindset is to get reelected at any cost. It could be to get reelected he has to be at the forefront of any Tea Party revolt.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[DHBirr]

Just for the ... ahem ... HELL of it, I resized this image specifically so its width is 666 pixels.  Because if any Republicans thought this could really happen, it'd scare the devil out of them.
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oooh, I like that idea.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Black Aeronaut]

Oh hell yes. That would stick in the Republican's craw something fierce.