posted
I'm going to leave it to others to discuss whether SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia furthered or hindered their personal political, social, and economic agendas; I'm going to address President Obama's constitutional duty to timely appoint a replacement and the Senate's duty to "advise and consent" regarding that appointment.
President Obama, despite the Republican ranting and ravings on the "Jerry Springer Show" from Greenville, SC, has stated he will make the appointment; there remains more than eleven months in his presidency - and that is too long to go with decisions being remanded to the Lower Courts owing to a deadlock at Supreme level.
I can't name names, but I'm willing to bet the appointment will be a White, Moderate, woman with impeccable Lower Court credentials. This woman could well be a swing vote in the style of a Justice Kennedy (who has made decisions that would have the Reaganites rolling in their graves). If this designate has a swing record in the Lower Courts, I hold that the Republican Senators will allow her to be confirmed. At this time, despite those clowns making a mockery of our electoral process (I listened but did not watch; as CBS Radio News carried the debate), I believe Congress feels compelled to cooperate with, but not roll over to, the President's power of appointment.
Thoughts, anyone?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What in the world would make you think that obama was capable of naming a white, moderate, woman with impeccable Lower Court credentials to be his choice for a Supreme Court vacancy? His history is Sotomeyer and Kagan, possibly the two least qualified Justices since the beginning of our Nation.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the death of Scalia will ultimately work against the GOP. Scalia was a far-right iconclast who will be remembered fondly--more for his personality than his opinions. But I think most Americans would prefer a more moderate voice on the SCOTUS.
I think Obama will make a ceremonial nomination for the vacancy that will force the GOP to vote down or delay an apparently well qualified person for purely political reasons. I'm thinking someone like Gary Locke would be an interesting nominee.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Two days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in remote West Texas, a former D.C. homicide commander is raising questions about how the death was handled by local and federal authorities.
“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, wrote in a post on Facebook on Sunday.
Scalia was found dead in his room at a luxury hunting resort in the state’s Big Bend region by the resort’s owner. It took hours for authorities to find a justice of the peace. When they did, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body — which is permissible under Texas law — and without ordering an autopsy.
Can't they just stick to JFK?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
County Judge Cinderela Guevara? Sounds like a leftist conspiracy already. Probably the revenge-seeking daughter of Che, who only rose to her current position because her foot fit a certain glass slipper.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
A "narrow confirmation" say the tarot cards to me. Lest we forget, she was unanimously confirmed to a Lower Court (CCA8), so that would mean somebody who said she was qualified is now having to say she is not qualified.
I believe, and this is solely my thought, that the confirmation process is to determine the qualifications of a designate - and nothing beyond. The system worked well when Nixon appointed a political hack; not so well when Reagan appointed Robert Bork. Bush 41's appointment of Justice Thomas get derailed with a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff.
In short, the President, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should "get his wo/man". It is part of the checks and balances that have served us "pretty well" since 1788.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not gonna happen until the new President is sworn in.
Senator Schumer has already set the example back in 2007 when he said that Bush would not get to anoint anyone onto the Supreme Court for his last 18 months in office.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The position taken by the "surviving" Republican Presidential candidates that the President should defer through two terms of 'The Supremes" and eleven months simply because he won't appoint anyone to the liking of conservatives is simply baseless:
1.Phrase found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. of the United States Constitution describing the Senate’s role in confirming presidential appointments and ratifying treaties. The “consent” takes the form of a vote. Rarely does a president formally seek the Senate’s advice (it has happened only twice; the last time was in 1848), but senators often advise the president informally as to which potential nominees and treaty provisions are acceptable
Sen. Ted Cruz, appearing this morning on Meet the Press, explained why he’s opposed to President Obama nominating anyone to replace Justice Scalia. “The Senate’s duty is to advise and consent,” Cruz said. “You know what? The Senate is advising right now, we are advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court. That we’re going to have an election, and if liberals are so confident that the American people want unlimited abortion on demand, want religious liberty torn down, want the Second Amendment taken away, want veterans memorials torn down, want the crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans, then go and make the case to the people.”
It would really be nice if Sen. Cruz could come up with a reason beyond that he and his caucus would not like anyone that President Obama will nominate. Lest they forget; what if Hillary wins and brings four additional Democratic seats with her? Think there would be any "niceties" by appointing a well qualified moderate jurist that I believe Obama accepts he must?
Finally, as an addendum and without anything that could be construed as comment, such as selecting a Fair Use quotation, here are the Journal and The Times views of their respective Editorial Boards:
posted
"I have never killed a man, but I have read some obituaries with joy". Clarence Darrow. Another aspect of Scalia's demise is that Clarence Thomas is officially brain dead. Now that I've got that out of the way, Mr. Norman is correct. Nothing in the Constitution says the President can't make appointments in an election year, especially with nearly a full year to serve. He doesn't become a "lame duck" until after the election, and neither party has even picked their nominees yet! If the Repigs don't want Obama's choice, they can vote that person down. And take the electoral consequences if that person seems reasonable to the public.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: If the Repigs don't want Obama's choice, they can vote that person down. And take the electoral consequences if that person seems reasonable to the public.
I would suspect that it would be more dangerous politically for any Republican in the Senate to vote for approval of any Supreme Court nominee that would be acceptable to Obama.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Let the GOP reject the moderate choice Obama puts up, then sit back and watch the Dems win the White House and the Senate. And then either Hillary or Bernie will name someone way farther left and get him/her approved. After that, wait for Ginsberg and Kennedy to stand down! Wonderful strategy, Mitch!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia immediately prompted lofty-sounding pronouncements from leaders of both parties. But behind the public statements, the two parties are engaged in raw political calculations about how to best leverage the vacancy, underscoring the country’s deep polarization and the reality of how elections are waged nowadays.
Most strategists in both parties view the appointment process as a prime opportunity to galvanize their core supporters in the presidential and congressional elections. With partisan preferences increasingly cemented in the American public and a declining share of swing voters, elections are increasingly won through mobilizing party members rather than trying to persuade independent-minded or skeptical voters. That is why most politicians are reluctant to do anything that defies or demoralizes their respective voter bases.
This fact of political life explains why many Republican senators who face competitive races this year and are from liberal or moderate states wasted little time in siding with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, in declaring that they would oppose any effort by President Obama to select Justice Scalia’s successor. It also is why many Democrats would prefer to see the president nominate someone who could energize their partisans.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON — Should an autopsy have been performed on the body of Justice Antonin Scalia?
When a Texas justice of the peace certified that the 79-year-old Supreme Court justice had died from natural causes, questions immediately erupted. No autopsy had been performed, and the certification had been made without even an examination of the body. The unexpected death of a divisive public figure during an acerbic presidential campaign set off conspiracy theories and demands from political commentators that a pathologist perform an autopsy before Justice Scalia’s burial on Saturday to prove no foul play was involved.
Texas officials said they had obeyed the wishes of the Scalia family in not authorizing an autopsy after the justice was found Feb. 13 in his bed at a West Texas ranch, cold, pulseless, his hands almost folded on top of the sheets as if he were taking a nap. His doctor said he had chronic cardiovascular disease, and witnesses described a scene typical for death from heart disease.
An estimated 326,000 people of all ages experience cardiac arrest out of a hospital in the United States each year, and 90 percent of them die, according to the American Heart Association
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I consider Scalia a major loss to the cause of true Constitutional government and individual liberty I have no inclination to suspect conspiracy.
A 79 year old man with chronic cardiovascular disease dies while in the home of some long time friends? Sounds like a way I would like to go out. Peacefully, without lingering with wires and tubes. Autopsy on him only if beneficial knowledge or to resolve some of the family concerns, otherwise simply ghoulish curiosity or feeding tabloids.
If you want to talk conspiracy, I still have thoughts on JFK.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with George. My younger brother died of cardiovascular disease in his sleep just before Thanksgiving, and he was only 63. It happens, especially if you overindulge in bourbon every night.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike: "only 63" Yikes!! when I read that I was thinking just that way also, but then I remembered there was a time I thought of 63 as being old.
Sorry about your brother. Losing someone close like that is hard, and seems more so when they are younger than you.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He went the way he wanted to, in his sleep. When I showed up to his apartment, I had to feel his face. He looked like he was just taking a nap, except his skin had attained room temperature. He had 4 problems; overweight, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease. Every one of those problems can be controlled with medicine. He chose to ignore them.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson Oh we will. Trump has the charisma to get us to go out and vote AGAINST him, especially knowing the Supreme Court is in play.
Mr. Nicholson's observation made at another active topic at this forum, suggests that the Republicans who will do what they must to delay a selection to replace Justice Scalia, might be working against their own interests.
Obama knows that if he has any chance to get a nominee of his choosing on the Bench, that nominee will have a conservative "lean". But if the Judiciary Committee stalls, they must face the strong possibility that Hillary will win in November and take a net of four or more Senate seats with her, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats.
Now it's payback time; watch a Liberal leaning nominee get confirmed.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
That is why I will oppose any attempt by the Democrats to deny the American people their say. There should be no hearing on any nomination that President Obama makes, and if any confirmation vote is attempted, I will filibuster it. Notably, this approach was advocated by Vice President Joe Biden when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992, and as recently as 2007 by the man now slated to be the next Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, if Mr. Biden's thoughts hold, then a president may appoint Justices only during the first two years of a term.
I don't think that was the intent of the Fathers - those who Sen. Cruz holds that their words are indelible.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer both agree that the last year of a Presidency means no Supreme Court nominees should be submitted and approved. That gives each President 3 years, not 2 years.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can add Harry Reid from May 2005 to my list of people that disagree with themselves.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
As so often the case away from the Legal community, it's a "who's that"?
If Obama were to name a judge from, say, The Ninth CCA, known for its "flaming liberal" decisions (at least if one believes in the Gospel according to Rush and Sean), I'd say such would be "pure politics".
The ball is now in the Republican's court. Confirm this nominee in a timely manner or take your chances with Hillary who just might take enough Senate seats with her for a Democratic majority - or even The Donald - not known for adhering to the Conservative party line.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever hear the saying. "Striving for perfection driving out the good"
However, I do not think that is the case here. Reading Mr. Norman's reference I do not think this is the case here. Note the quoted New York Times viewpoint, "If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years." Raised in Chicago, judge in DC? I consider that combination scary particularly combined with the NYT's statements.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Now that the President has laid his cards on the table (as the Constitution requires him to do), now the Republicans, just as I speculated but now with confirmation from a major news source, have decided that if Hillary (and maybe even The Donald) wins and takes five or more Senate seats along with her, better have hearings on this Moderate candidate during this term, as we sure won't like the Libby she nominates. Now, if we win, especially with Ted, now we appoint one who will make Scalia look Libby.
As political as it could be - and I don't think that is what the "Fathers" had in mind when they proposed, and the States ratified, that the President appoints, but the Senate, and only the Senate, passes upon the nominee to hold a seat for so long as that nominee, now Mr. or Madam Justice, chooses.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would urge all here, regardless of their own standing on this issue of whether President Obama should be prepared to have the Senate defer on their Constitutional duty to advise and consent on a SCOTUS nomimee, to read this provocative column appearing in Today's Times:
Last month, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered some blunt remarks about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The Senate should ensure that nominees are qualified, he said, and leave politics out of it.
The chief justice spoke 10 days before Justice Antonin Scalia died, and he could not have known how timely and telling his comments would turn out to be. They now amount to a stern, if abstract, rebuke to the Republican senators who refuse to hold hearings on President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland.
If the CJSCOTUS has issues with timely confirmation hearings, then I think rational minded VOTERS should have same.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roberts was probably referring to the Sotomeyer and Kagan nominees, but the US Congress will be following the Biden rule from 1972 and confirmed by Harry Reid & Chucky Schumer.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, possibly I am guilty of reiterating an earlier point of mine, but I sincerely believe the Conservative faction of the Republican party, is simply "betting the ranch" that their standard bearer, Sen. Cruz, will be nominated and will win the General Election.
As many a commentator across all venues of recognized media has noted, the Republicans had best hedge their bets and accept this highly qualified centrist nominee. For if Hillary wins, and takes five Senate seats with her, who knows what kind of Libby she will appoint and will be confirmed simply on the strength of "she's got the votes"?
Best hedge your bet, Ted.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Hillary wins this election, that will be absolute evidence that this Union of United States has failed and each State should seek its own form of government. I'm sure a number of States will join with Texas and form a Union based on the US Constitution. (It is not being used, why not use it...) I really do not care what the rest of the States decide. We are witnessing the fall of the Roman Empire, again.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, I remember hearing much discussion about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as a kid. Seems that currently no one even knows there is such a book. Today we have gone a long way into the "Bread and Circuses" state, except we call it welfare and television.
The question on the table now is, will they try to stop us this time?
Not sure it will make much difference whether it is Hillary or the Donald other that some things of format similar to the differences between Communism and Fascism.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My, how times have changed! Just the other day, Obama was a “lame duck” who doesn’t have the authority to name a Supreme Court Justice with almost 11 Months left in his term, but today he’s still the Leader of the Free World who needs to get back to the White House because there is apparently no telephone service in Cuba! GOPers love having it both ways!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, Hillary would not have the very first clue how to stop us, so she would probably wish us "good riddance" when we resign our membership in this failed Union..
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will the new eastern terminus of the Sunset be beautiful downtown Deming, NM?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Will the new eastern terminus of the Sunset be beautiful downtown Deming, NM?
Maybe they'll seal the doors as the train passes through, like the "Atlantic" did going through Maine!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sunset would still roll through Texas, you would just need your USA passport. Oh wait... You will need that in the near future, anyway.
I would think about 15-20 States would decide to join us as we left the failure known as the USA. (FYI, socialism always fails)
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully they'll be contiguous. Except we're keeping Florida; that's where Disney World is!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we divide Florida so that the Panhandle becomes its own state a la the counties that were formed into West Virginia? That way we leave Yankee Retireland to become its own state. Maybe that should be called into South New York which it seems to have turned into.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we divide Florida so that the Panhandle becomes its own state a la the counties that were formed into West Virginia? That way we leave Yankee Retireland to become its own state. Maybe that should be called into South New York which it seems to have turned into.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Can we divide Florida so that the Panhandle becomes its own state a la the counties that were formed into West Virginia? That way we leave Yankee Retireland to become its own state. Maybe that should be called into South New York which it seems to have turned into.
Good idea. Leave a corridor that the Meteor, Star, and Auto Train cad slip through, and you're good to go.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
