Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Lakhota]

Didn't Senate Democrats give President George W. Bush TWO wingnuts to the Supreme Court - John Roberts and Samuel Alito?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

maybe

the latest lower court decision

wiped the administrations new epa plan

--LOL

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

 

[NYcarbineer]

I pray another Jew isn't appointed.

Just out of curiosity,

who do you pray to for such a wish?

Allah?

 

[hjmick]

Fuck! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! Fuck!

He will never get one past the senate. The next President will be picking his replacement.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

maybe

the latest lower court decision

wiped the administrations new epa plan

--LOL

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

yeah the lefties often try to claim that

except across the nation every election down to the dog catcher

has pretty much gone to the right

 

[Billo_Really]

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

have no details. But this is huge.

Thank God!

It's about time. I hope that fucker burns in hell for the shit he's done.

And I'll bet anyone that Obama, who is center-right, will not name a liberal to replace him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fuck! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! Fuck!

we can drag out the confirmation...then vote it down.

Such is the reprehensible, partisan right – to do this even when the nominee is perfectly qualified.

 

[ogibillm]

Not anywhere in fact.

U.S. Senate sets its own rules. There is precedent that Reid single handedly changed the rules for his partisan reasons...

Maybe, but that will have to be voted on anew won't it?
The current state of affairs is that the filibusters are eliminated for nominations below SCOTUS.
The previous 'nuclear option' hasn't changed the rules as far as appointing a replacement for Scalia.

back in the day the 'nuclear option' was called the 'constitutional option' by the right-wing pundits and talking heads.
but don't expect them to acknowledge that.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Stop that Negro from Nominating anyone ...that is for white folks only

REID: Blocking New Nominee Would Be 'Shameful Abdication'... Obama Has 341 Days Left!... 'Epic Battles Over The Fate Of Our Nation' Ahead... 'Breathtaking Consequences'... 2016 Stakes Just Got Much, Much Higher...

 

[Flopper]

This is going to set up one hell of a show down in the Senate

Yes, it certainly will. Obama would most probably nominate someone and most probably the Senate would just do nothing letting the seat remain open because Republicans control the Senate.

There are real dangers for Republicans leaving the seat vacant till the next president takes control. First off, Republicans have lost the most conservative member of the court which means the court is going to be more left leaning for at least a year. If the next president is a democrat, then, he or she may appoint someone even less acceptable than an Obama appointee. If Trump wins, there is no guarantee that he would appoint a right leaning candidate. So there are significant risks in just leaving the court seat vacant for a year. What this means is there's going to be some negotiations between Mich McConnell and Obama.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Looks like that old Jew Gingsburg has a bib attached to catch her drool.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Fuck! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! Fuck!

we can drag out the confirmation...then vote it down.

Such is the reprehensible, partisan right – to do this even when the nominee is perfectly qualified.

Qualified to one is not qualified to another....Obama will certainly nominate an anti gun candidate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I never wanted to see anybody die, but there are a few obituary notices I have read with pleasure" -- Clarence Darrow

Sure, Scalia was a nice guy. Despite being opposed on every issue, he and Justice Ginsberg were close friends. If she thought he was a quality person, I'll trust her judgement.

However, his decisions did grievous harm to the nation and the world. I take pleasure in knowing that many millions of people will no longer be harmed by Scalia's decisions. It's not his death that pleases me, it's that he's no longer capable of harming so many people. I'd have been just as happy if he retired.

While the court is shorthanded, some 5-4 decisions will now go 4-4. Ties mean that the lower court ruling is upheld.

So, for example, the SC was planning to soon hear a case on the Clean Power Act concerning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and it was anticipated the SC would overturn it 5-4. That won't happen now. With a 4-4 tie, the new law will be upheld.

Obama has 341 days left......I'm finding it hard to believe they can stonewall constitutional duties for purely partisan intentions.

All Obama has to do is nominate someone to fill the "Conservative Italian American" Seat on SCOTUS

 

[jillian]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

maybe

the latest lower court decision

wiped the administrations new epa plan

--LOL

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

how's president romney doing?

 

[candycorn]

It will be a great commentary for the 2016 GOP...double down on "Let the next President decide" and then have Hillary appoint the next justice (or 2 or 3) with zero influence from the GOP except for the pouting.

 

[Dot Com]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

That won't work, the people won't stand for it

If they reject the first nominee, they will have a hard time rejecting the second

You really think people will have a hard time letting the new president pick the next justice? It seems only fair

what? In whose universe?!!!

You that scared of losing?

the Court is busy enough w/o having to function w/ a vacancy missy.

 

[jillian]

"I never wanted to see anybody die, but there are a few obituary notices I have read with pleasure" -- Clarence Darrow

Sure, Scalia was a nice guy. Despite being opposed on every issue, he and Justice Ginsberg were close friends. If she thought he was a quality person, I'll trust her judgement.

However, his decisions did grievous harm to the nation and the world. I take pleasure in knowing that many millions of people will no longer be harmed by Scalia's decisions. It's not his death that pleases me, it's that he's no longer capable of harming so many people. I'd have been just as happy if he retired.

While the court is shorthanded, some 5-4 decisions will now go 4-4. Ties mean that the lower court ruling is upheld.

So, for example, the SC was planning to soon hear a case on the Clean Power Act concerning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and it was anticipated the SC would overturn it 5-4. That won't happen now. With a 4-4 tie, the new law will be upheld.

Hopefully Ruth joins hi

Obama has 341 days left......I'm finding it hard to believe they can stonewall constitutional duties for purely partisan intentions.

All Obama has to do is nominate someone to fill the "Conservative Italian American" Seat on SCOTUS

so it's the left that wishes people dead, huh?

disgusting.

 

[candycorn]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

maybe

the latest lower court decision

wiped the administrations new epa plan

--LOL

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

how's president romney doing?

he he he

 

[jillian]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

That won't work, the people won't stand for it

If they reject the first nominee, they will have a hard time rejecting the second

You really think people will have a hard time letting the new president pick the next justice? It seems only fair

what? In whose universe?!!!

You that scared of losing?

the Court is busy enough w/o having to function w/ a vacancy missy.

they hate the court. it makes them serve gays and blacks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Quite obviously, there is a political reality to the death of Justice Scalia.

The court is split 4-4 between those appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. If party lines are not crossed, there will be a lot of lower court decisions that remain since a 4-4 decisions by the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand. I believe that the new formation of the court in the next session can decide to re-hear the cases once the bench is filled. So we may just be hitting the pause button on a lot of cases.

The intersection of our presidential politics and the constitutional duties of the President have, perhaps, never been more interesting. Can you imagine it? The Senate's Majority Leader has said that there will be no hearings this year. This is pretty absurd but whatever...most people do not know enough about the workings of the SCOTUS to weigh in responsibly and whether we need 9 justices or not. As stated...it will amount to hitting the "pause button" on a lot of cases. Anyway...the people do not want to hear about what they don't know; to most Americans, you don't wait a year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court...its dumb.

So lets say that the Senate gives in to what is sure to be the overwhelming public opinion and has hearings. Obama nominates a....well, does it matter? Reflexively, the GOP congress will hate them. Eventually, whoever the eventual nominee that makes it out of committee makes it to the floor and the Senate is set to approve the nominee...It's mid May or June.

Meanwhile the California Primary and it's hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Cruz is still in it but he has to do this filibuster. The entire Senate despises this dude so they are happy to schedule the vote on the day of the primary so he has to be in Washington talking about non-sense.

Meanwhile the Senate has 24 GOP seats up for grabs. The Dems need to take 4 to re-take the Senate. Its almost a given that they will.
It may be wise to negotiate with Obama over a nominee rather than have zero input next year with Hillary picking the nominee with a Democratic controlled Senate.

maybe

the latest lower court decision

wiped the administrations new epa plan

--LOL

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

how's president romney doing?

he he he

Who controls the Senate? he he he he. Dumbasses