Justice Scalia Found Dead

[Musburger1]

If anything, I think the decision has helped decrease wealth inequality in this country as it has led to many rich people very unnecessarily alienating themselves from great amounts of their wealth with very minimal return, if any. Only one dem or one rep can win the general election so a lot of people are going to give money to nothing no matter what. So if anything, Scalia and company should be heroes to those that want to spread the wealth.

Surely you don't believe this to be true. Wealth in this country currently is concentrated in fewer hands than ever before, even moreso than the late 20's prior to the stock market crash. The United States has a much higher gulf between the rich and poor than other developed countries and the trend is accelerating. Whether one considers this positive or harmful doesn't change the fact that it is reality. The Citizen's United decision isn't the primary cause of this trend but it is a factor.

A handful of banks have become so large and powerful they basically write policy and are a systemic threat to the entire system should one of them fail. Do you believe these banks paid the Clinton's and now Bernanke upwards of $250,000 per speech because they care what they have to say? I don't think you are that naive. The millions in speaking fees are just a legal means of thanking them for doing their bidding when they were in power (and in Hillary's case an incentive to continue such should she become President). Goldman has reached out to fund Cruz's campaigns in the past - doesn't hurt him that his wife holds a high position in that firm.

Just look at the race between Hillary and Sanders. Sanders basically represents the Democrat base. He's strongly pro-union, wants to break up the big banks, and an avowed Socialist. Hillary plays lip service to same, but in reality is a bought and paid for establishment candidate, status quo lacky. But the Democrat machinery wants her to win. Why? Because like the Republicans, Democrats must have corporate dollars to compete. The Democrat platform may tilt toward Sanders, but behind the scenes, they are owned by the corporations just like the Republicans. And that's why Citizens United was disastrously bad for America. The decision gave an edge to the Republican Party over the Democrats, but in essence, it eliminated any chance for the common man to influence policy within either party. Just last year there was a study that concluded public opinion now has a negligible effect on policy. Money is access and access is power. Corporations rule the political process in America.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I heard some talk about a recess appointment.

Apparently there is a window of opportunity for him to do that, if he wishes to stoop that low.

They can use pro forma sessions to block a recess appointment. Nevertheless, even if one took place, it wouldn't fill the vacancy long term.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

This...

However, it'll still be a hard-line social liberal who will strike down the death penalty in all cases, create an absolute right to an abortion regardless of the circumstances and viability, and fully impose the LGBT agenda (even the most radical elements of it) through judicial activism. That's unacceptable, and no amount of compromising can be made in the budget to make that acceptable. Obama could agree to eliminate the federal income tax and privatize Social Security, and it would still be unacceptable.

The Republican party has devoted way too much energy fighting the taxes and regulation battle and not nearly enough fighting for the country's moral direction. they've given ground on every conservative moral principle and I've almost given up on them. If it weren't for the fact that the other guys are even worse, I wouldn't vote republican these days.

 

[Musburger1]

This...


The Republican party has devoted way too much energy fighting the taxes and regulation battle and not nearly enough fighting for the country's moral direction. they've given ground on every conservative moral principle and I've almost given up on them. If it weren't for the fact that the other guys are even worse, I wouldn't vote republican these days.

The Republicans pay lip service to moral issues because this is important to much of the base. However moral issues are irrelevant to the corporate world and military-industrial complex that the politicians must serve if they want to keep their job and be rewarded afterward. The love of money is said to be the root of all evil. We have morphed into a society that worships money.

 

[BevoBeef]

They can't let that happens under any circumstance. The GOP has gone to war over the debt ceiling and Obamacare, but this can shake the foundations of the republic in a very profound way. That stuff is piddly **** by comparison.

The Dems will need something like 14 Republicans to break a filibuster. So, with the majority control, I do not see how BO's appointment (even if he seeks a compromise appointment) will go through. It may be a dog fight, but I do not see an issue arising to stop the delay until next term unless someone like Trump uses it as a wedge if he wins the nomination.

Deez, you probably are monitoring the cases going to the Supreme Court this year. With a 4-4 split now in the Supreme Court vote, how will the lower court rulings that will dominate affect the issues? I suppose one cannot really predict when the high court will be split 4-4?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why does everyone assume BO would put up an uber-liberal nominee when the Republicans control the Senate?

What's scary is that most on her are advocating for leaving the SC vacant for ~18 months. In the Kennedy situation he was replacing a retiring justice. Evidently many are advocating letting the Appellate courts rule the day for the a significant amount of time. After all, any 4-4 votes automatically revert to the Appellate court ruling.

RIP Justice Scalia. I vehemently disagreed with your social agenda but you carried yourself with integrity.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Why does everyone assume BO would put up an uber-liberal nominee .........

 

[Seattle Husker]

They have reason to celebrate. They know what the Supreme Court can do when it has a liberal majority. 90 percent of liberal victories came through the Court. It's their big opportunity to push every ****** up, perverse agenda that they can't impose through legitimate democratic means.

2 sides of the same coin, Mr. Deez. The right perverts the democratic process to institutionalize discrimination and the conservative social agenda (i.e. abortion). Aren't the courts the natural relief? From my 8th grade civics class I thought the courts were the check against executive/legislative power.

 

[Seattle Husker]

OK. So any name put forward will automatically be assumed to be a extremely liberal? A federal judge 2 years ago flew through with unanimous approval (East Indian descent). What about someone like that? Would the right immediately spin that as a left-wing liberal?

 

[zork]

to be clear: this will be used as a don't let a good crisis go to waste. however it can be used to further the goals of X party it will be. from the last 8-9 years it is clear that the democrats will win the day on their ability to use this to further their goals given the utterly spineless lack of leadership from the republican side.

trump is getting the most attention due to the fact that he will probably give us 50% of what the democrats were going to shove down our throats anyway while also giving partial service to some of the things that are deemed as security for the country.

that is unlike whatever you can call what the present administration has done to us as a country and what the clintons would do while we are "wide open". <insert: mind if I have a go cartoon as the country is already bent over>

 

[Seattle Husker]

to be clear: this will be used as a don't let a good crisis go to waste.

Like the Iraq War?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Really sad and unexpected. What is the protocol for appointment of SC justices in the last year of a lame duck POTUS? Wonder if the Republicans can delay the confirmation until next year.

This article details the history of election-year appointments since 1900. It shows no precedent for a long-term holdout.

I think the Republicans should bring a nomination to the floor but vote nay if the candidate isn't to their liking, as the Democrats did with Bork. Ironically, Biden presided over the Judiciary Committee hearings for Bork, and could choose to preside (but undoubtedly won't) over these hearings.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Agreed. Obama gets to nominate and the Republicans can choose to vote yay or nay. Waiting for a year to even get a nomination when the court is sitting at a precarious 8 justices is playing with fire. Ginsberg is the next that could pass in her sleep, heaven forbid.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I just read up on the so-called nuclear option, which enables the presiding officer plus a bare majority to overcome a filibuster. I don't think there is much chance 4 Republican senators would join with Biden and the Democrats, but that's what it would take.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I just read up on the so-called nuclear option, which enables the presiding officer plus a bare majority to overcome a filibuster. I don't think there is much chance 4 Republican senators would join with Biden and the Democrats, but that's what it would take.

Yeah, when even moderates like Mr. Deez jump right to "we can't let this happen" it gives insight into how much the Republican's will dig in.

 

[NJlonghorn]

An unlikely compromise that I'd love to see -- Obama appoints a package deal of 2 justices, one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative, to replace Scalia and Ginsburg.

 

[Htown77]

What's scary is that most on her are advocating for leaving the SC vacant for ~18 months.

What's scarier to some is 40 years of an ultra liberal on the supreme court.

Sotomayor was fine, but I do not trust this president to appoint another justice after the unqualified Kagan "he must have owed her a favor from their chicago law days" appointment.

2 sides of the same coin, Mr. Deez. The right perverts the democratic process to institutionalize discrimination and the conservative social agenda (i.e. abortion). Aren't the courts the natural relief? From my 8th grade civics class I thought the courts were the check against executive/legislative power.

Perverts the democratic process by passing popular laws like on the issue of abortion? The courts job is to interpret the constitution, not check popular political agendas they disagree with... and yes the abortion ruling was making policy, not interpreting the constitution (which does not in any way address trimesters).

(Side note, I could care less whether or not abortion is legal or illegal. It does not affect my life either way. I however do not like the Court making policy rather than interpreting the Constitution. We could have this same discussion on the Heller gun rights decision, the gay marriage decision, etc. )

 

[zork]

Does Biden get to come in to bring it for a vote if McConnell doesn't bring it up ala Reid for his X amount as years as Majority leader? (not saying McConnell should emulate Reid)

 

[Spur 90]

We discussed this earlier today:
An unlikely compromise that I'd love to see -- Obama appoints a package deal of 2 justices, one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative, to replace Scalia and Ginsburg.

That is a very good option for all parties.

And when Sen Warren wrote: “In fact, they (the American people) did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

The clause in the constitution empowering the president to name Supreme Court justices -- Article II, Section 2 -- does not include an exception for when the president only has one year left in office, Warren noted.


The American people also voted in 2010, 2012 and 2014 that they wanted more Republicans in the Senate than Democrats.

The text: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court

 

[Joe Fan]

Why does everyone assume BO would put up an uber-liberal nominee .....

This is forgivable upon proof of coma for the last 7 years
Or sleep - Rip van Husker does have a nice ring

 

[Joe Fan]

Yeah, when even moderates like Mr. Deez jump right to "we can't let this happen",,,,,.

Moderation and compromise are how you get to $19T in federal debt

 

[Joe Fan]

In any event, it may not matter by tomorrow morning

 

[Horns11]

These are the things I see in a scenario like this:

1. Basically, the majority party in the Senate controls all court nominations, forever and ever, amen. When we saw formalities of nominees in the past, it was just because there apparently was no such thing as partisanship. So while being President is pretty kickass, the midterms are what counts. It's constitutional as **** and whoever's in charge of the executive branch can flat out suck it. I honestly don't mind this.

2. That said, with a 4-4 split (which is actually more like a 5-3 social agenda split lead for the liberals), it'll be quite a gambit for the 24 GOP Senate seats that are up for reelection in the third class to run against a well-funded, party base machine who uses this as fuel for why the GOP never gets anything done with their majority. Sure, only about 7 of those 24 are going to be hotly-contested, but if 5 of those swing, it's back to the drawing board. These seats (oddly enough, including Rubio's) will be the lynchpin of the DNC's efforts and include all sorts of numbers about how the economy has improved under Obama, etc.

3. Same goes for the Presidential general election. Clinton (or Sanders... but not likely) will look like a constitutional genius in debates against whoever he/she's up against, blaming the GOP for "silencing" the right of a President to nominate SC members, which sounds kind of gestapo. The GOP will have no "will of the people" leg to stand on, as everyone and their mom knows who nominates SC justices. They'll have their sound bites about "people should have a say" and then the late night shows will blast their rhetoric and galvanize the liberals in November.

 

[Joe Fan]

Chuckles Schumer then --

Chuckles Schumer now --

 

[HornHuskerDad]

If they allow a liberal majority to take hold on the Court, the results will be horrifying and catastrophic to the constitutional order.

Absolutely! And with more SCOTUS vacancies likely in the next term, it is vital that the GOP (a) increase their majorities in the Congress and (b) retake the White House.

 

[Horns11]

At least Chuck was honest about why they (Senate Dems) wouldn't confirm anyone else. McConnell and Cruz are hiding behind the "it's not the will of the people" argument.

 

[zork]

The assumption is that someone like Holder will get the bid and that is why it likely won't be approved. If someone acceptable, and I don't know enough to even have a clue who that would be, is nominated then he/she might get approved.(he/she was not a Caitlyn reference for the record)

 

[Joe Fan]

from a 2010 commencement

 

[Joe Fan]

At least Chuck was honest about why they (Senate Dems) wouldn't confirm anyone else. McConnell and Cruz are hiding behind the "it's not the will of the people" argument.

Are you aware of the current make-up of the House by Party?
That is the closest thing we have to direct democracy and thus the best representation available of the will of the people.