or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Justice Scalia Has Died
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justice Scalia Has Died - Page 2

post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

...when they all had no problems confirming Kennedy in February of Reagan's last year.

Wasn't Kennedy his 3rd choice, or something?

Regardless of the next appointment, there's lots of more-immediate political repercussions looming.
From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/14/scalia-death-supreme-court-abortion-immigration-race-labor-voting-conservative/80372440/
Quote:
Labor unions (heard Jan. 11): This is the case that conservatives seemed most assured of winning, until now. During oral argument, the conservatives sharply criticized the current system in which public employees in 23 states and the District of Columbia must pay for the cost of collective bargaining, even if they disagree with union demands.

With Kennedy leading the way, the court appeared likely to strike down that requirement, which would reverse the lower court and deal a major blow to the financial clout of public employee unions such as the California Teachers Association. Now, a tie vote looms which would uphold the system.
Quote:
Abortion (to be heard March 2): Abortion clinics in Texas are challenging a state law, upheld in lower courts, that imposes tough new restrictions on doctors and facilities. The case has shaped up to be the biggest one affecting reproductive rights since 1992.

Now, however, it appears that if supporters of abortion rights don't win outright with the support of Kennedy or another conservative justice, a 4-4 tie upholding the Texas law would not set a new national precedent for federal courts to follow.
Quote:
Contraception (to be heard March 23): Religious non-profits such as charities, schools and hospitals are seeking an exemption from the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers pay for contraceptives as part of standard health insurance plans. They stood a good chance of winning with Scalia on the bench.

Now, the most likely outcome is a 4-4 tie that would leave the so-called "contraceptive mandate" in place for those non-profits.
post #17 of 37
Thread Starter 
Yep, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice, nominated in November 1987, so the situations are not exactly analogous. One thing that cuts in Obama's favor is that there is an actual vacancy this time, unlike the usual situation where a retiring Justice agrees to stay on the Court until his successor is confirmed. It seems incredible that the Supreme Court would have eight members for a year, but we'll see what McConnell and the Senate Republicans are willing to do.
post #18 of 37
I was going to post in this thread how Obama would disregard what's in the best interest of the court and calculate a nominee based on politics. Pio and suited beat me to it.

He wants to see a Democrat in the White House, so he will nominate a bl-isp gay woman.
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Robert Reich
22 hrs ·

My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)
Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate.
post #20 of 37
Words straight from McConnell's mouth in 2005:
Quote:
"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."
Quote:
Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.

Politics!
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Words straight from McConnell's mouth in 2005:

Politics!


Democrats changed the rules. Why change them back now, all of a sudden?
post #22 of 37
Thread Starter 
SCOTUSblog thinks the nominee will be Attorney General Lynch. I don't think she would be the pick if the Democrats controlled the Senate. Maybe a more traditional candidate (i.e., a sitting court of appeals judge) doesn't want to be a sacrificial lamb?
post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

SCOTUSblog thinks the nominee will be Attorney General Lynch. I don't think she would be the pick if the Democrats controlled the Senate. Maybe a more traditional candidate (i.e., a sitting court of appeals judge) doesn't want to be a sacrificial lamb?


This would be a smart pick for Obama.

He can stir up racial strife and dust off the War on Women posters to get the votes out for Hillary.
post #24 of 37
I'm not sure exactly why, but somehow the idea of someone foreign born on the Supreme Court seems off to me.
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

I'm not sure exactly why, but somehow the idea of someone foreign born on the Supreme Court seems off to me.

Brewer, Sutherland, Frankfurter
post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Brewer, Sutherland, Frankfurter

Bless You!!
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

I'm not sure exactly why, but somehow the idea of someone foreign born on the Supreme Court seems off to me.

I went and looked at a video of his to see what he sounds like for this reason. redface.gif
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post

I went and looked at a video of his to see what he sounds like for this reason. redface.gif

Please tell me he sounds like apoo.
post #29 of 37
laugh.gif that's what I hoping. But sorry, he doesnt.
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post

Right. But I hope the threat of a block will make him appoint someone deserving who is palatable to both sides regardless of race and gender.
I'm fairly certain Obama could nominate Roy Moore and at least 40 senators would call it the most nakedly partisan and liberal choice in the history of the entire Supreme Court.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Justice Scalia Has Died