SCOTUS after Scalia

[billw55]

I've heard some opinions that the GOP is bluffing, and will back down when Obama actually presents him. It's easy to be boisterous now, but it would be political suicide to actually go through with it. It's like when they hold the budget hostage and threaten government shutdowns.

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

 

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

[Winstonm]

The "American Taliban" faction refuses to compromise and is holding the entire GOP hostage. There is no such faction within the Democrats. We will find out in this coming election cycle how much appeal there is in this "take no hostage, my way or the highway" political message.

 

Personally, I hope the GOP gets gutted, as I hate to think I could live in a country that would actually elect any of the current crop of GOP candidates.

[mike777]

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

 

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

 

 

I bet if they do hold a full vote, the person will be confirmed. I think if they hold full hearings they will have a vote on the floor of the senate. Assuming the guy or gal is not a mass murderer or card carrying socialist, they get in if they hold hearings.

 

THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in. :)

[kenberg]

I bet if they do hold a full vote, the person will be confirmed. I think if they hold full hearings they will have a vote on the floor of the senate. Assuming the guy or gal is not a mass murderer or card carrying socialist, they get in if they hold hearings.

 

THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in. :)

 

So a short list of disqualifcations:

 

Mass murderer

Card carrying Socialist

 

Anything else? Multiple personality disorder? Once smoked marijuana?

 

I am joking of course. Or am I? Time will tell.

[barmar]

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

 

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

That's why many are saying that Obama needs to nominate a centrist -- someone the GOP would have a hard time objecting to. So if they do vote him down, it will be obvious that it was done to be obstructionist, just like threatening not to have a vote at all.

[y66]

Will Senator Grassley eventually consent to hold hearings? I think he will come under tremendous, increasing pressure from a number of different directions including his home state of Iowa and eventually consent.

[y66]

From The Supreme Court’s New Era by Linda Greenhouse:

 

So now we know what the post-Scalia Supreme Court sounds like. Thank you, Justice Thomas, for shaking up what had come to seem the natural order of things, as well as for your pithy observation from the bench that possession of a gun “at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

 

And we can watch the spreading panic in a corporate world no longer certain that business has five reliable friends at the court. Last Friday, Dow Chemical agreed to settle a class-action price-fixing case for $835 million rather than take its chances in a Scalia-less court. The company’s appeal of a $1.06 billion jury verdict in a long-running antitrust case, brought by purchasers of urethane, had been pending at the court since last March. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death means an “increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action suits,” Dow said in a statement announcing the decision to settle.

 

There will be more such turnabouts — appeals withdrawn, appeals not filed — as players for whom the Supreme Court status quo almost always brought good news recalculate their risks and cut their losses. I picture the Beltway now as a giant poker game, a fitting memorial to the poker-loving justice.

 

Because no one knows what happens next. Hearing what the new court sounds like is a far cry from knowing what it will look like six months, nine months, a year or more from now. We don’t know, and neither do the eight justices. It’s a rare moment that finds the court and the public stumbling around behind the same veil of ignorance. Just as advocates and their clients have to make strategic calculations, so do the justices. The stakes couldn’t be higher on either side of the bench.

[kenberg]

A highly qualified and minimally ideological justice, nominated by a Democratic President and confirmed by a Republican dominated Senate, would be a gift to the nation.

 

But now we must get back to reality. Too bad.

[barmar]

The On Point Blog has an article describing a constitutional technicality that could allow Garland (or some other Obama nominee) to be approved by the Senate even if the current one blocks his hearing. There are 13 days between the start of the next congressional session and the inauguration of the new President. If the Democrats take control of the new Senate, they could take up the nomination during that period.

[Flem72]

The On Point Blog has an article describing a constitutional technicality that could allow Garland (or some other Obama nominee) to be approved by the Senate even if the current one blocks his hearing. There are 13 days between the start of the next congressional session and the inauguration of the new President. If the Democrats take control of the new Senate, they could take up the nomination during that period.

 

If the Dems take control of the Senate, and do confirm, that, to me, is a "let the people speak" scenario.

[kenberg]

Following this a little further, suppose Dems take control of the Senate, and Republicans win the WH. There could be a call out for all left leaning justices who think they might die soon to resign, Obama would nominate their successors, and then, in this two week period, there could be a mass service to anoint them all.

 

Just fantasizing of course. Good God, I hope so anyway. I think a necessary personal trait for success in politics is to be incapable of feeling embarrassment, no matter your actions.

[y66]

Chief Justice John G Roberts' February 3, 2016 comments about the politicization of the nomination process.

[Winstonm]

At least some time during the day, I think every working stiff in America should stop whatever he is doing and take a moment to thank Antonin Scalia for his contribution to 4-4 S.C. vote that allowed public unions the right to organize. Perhaps after that, we should all have a sing-a-long of "Georgia on My Mind".

[Cyberyeti]

I find it amusing that George Mason university went some way down the road to creating the Antonin Scalia school of law before realising ASSoL might not be the best acronym, when it was pointed out how appropriate it was by detractors.

[kenberg]

I find it amusing that George Mason university went some way down the road to creating the Antonin Scalia school of law before realising ASSoL might not be the best acronym, when it was pointed out how appropriate it was by detractors.

 

This is great!

My mother once explained the care with which they chose my name. It was her opinion that the political chances of Robert A Taft were hampered by his initials.

 

In the laugh or cry department, this is from today's WaPo

 

I quote:

 

Those who oppose President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee have been digging for dirt to justify opposition by 52 of the 54 Senate Republicans to granting him a hearing. But about the worst thing anybody has come up with: an allegation that Garland crossed lanes in a relay race. In summer camp. Fifty years ago.

 

“I began to chase Merrick down, narrowing the lead to about five yards with about 70 yards to go,” Fred Eisenhammer, who went to day camp with Garland, wrote recently in the Chicago Tribune. “Merrick cut to the left in front of me before veering back on course. I staggered to avoid crashing into him” and never caught up.

The accuser acknowledged that the “adult leader” did not disqualify Garland’s relay team. But still: “Did Merrick Garland get away with something during that relay race?” Eisenhammer asked. “Was it intentional?”

 

It may be time to empanel a select committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see how this disqualifies the Chicago Tribune from being taken seriously, and I would hope that Mr. Eisenhammer receives all of the publicity that this piece entitles him to, but good grief.

 

As I get it, Merrick Garland's only failing is that he is not an ideologue. Apparently this is a serious shortcoming today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

My mother once explained the care with which they chose my name. It was her opinion that the political chances of Robert A Taft were hampered by his initials.

They wanted you to go into IT, so gave you the initials for kilobyte and keyboard?!? :blink: :lol:

[kenberg]

They wanted you to go into IT, so gave you the initials for kilobyte and keyboard?!? :blink: :lol:

 

In full, it's krb (r for Richard) . I will now set to work to see what I can do with it.

[Zelandakh]

In full, it's krb (r for Richard) . I will now set to work to see what I can do with it.

Being in Germany, that makes me think of Krebs (German for cancer). You weren't botn in July were you? None of the uses I can find online for KRB seem to have any useful meaning, although adding second letters gives K-RoBe, which feels like something that could be used - K for kaften perhaps? Ken Berg at the keyboard still seems like the best headline to me though! :P

[barmar]

This is great!

My mother once explained the care with which they chose my name. It was her opinion that the political chances of Robert A Taft were hampered by his initials.

Unfortunately, my parents didn't give much consideration to my initials.

 

One of my sister's initials are LM, but she's not a bridge player. The other's are SM, but AFAIK she's not into that.

[kenberg]

Unfortunately, my parents didn't give much consideration to my initials.

 

One of my sister's initials are LM, but she's not a bridge player. The other's are SM, but AFAIK she's not into that.

 

My mother was born in 1899, the first child, and was named Vernetta Manilla Enemark. Her mother's name was Etta, I don't know where the Vern came from, the Manilla was inspired by the 1899 battle of Manilla. This could make a person a little cautious about names! Her siblings had names such as Eddie, Marjorie and Floyd, so I guess her parents came to their senses. Even now I feel a danger of being haunted by revealing her middle name. She went by Vernetta M or, if pushed, by Vernetta Mae.

 

 

We wander from SCOTUS!

[Zelandakh]

One of my sister's initials are LM, but she's not a bridge player.

Over here, LM is sometimes used by cricket scorers to denote a left handed medium pace bowler.

 

The other's are SM, but AFAIK she's not into that.

How do you know?!! :blink: I have to admit that my first thought when I saw the initials was "Small". Your interpretation would never have occurred to me, any more than L&M (the cigarettes) would have sprung to mind for LM.

 

 

My mother was born in 1899, the first child, and was named Vernetta Manilla Enemark.

A similar story from my aunt, who was christened Avis Violet Doble. She hated this (to me it is not so bad!) and chose to go by the name Anne.

 

My initials are incidentally MAS - any similarity between my forum posts and Male Answer Syndrome is purely coincidental. B-)

[Thiros]

They wanted you to go into IT, so gave you the initials for kilobyte and keyboard?!? :blink: :lol:

 

And most recently Knowledge Base :)

[mycroft]

I'm MDF - yeah, I can't watch "home improvement" shows without flinching.

 

One of my friends is CDR - which worked well when he was a lisp admin.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I guess I had it easy. Mine are EHR. I was named after my father, who was named after his father.

 

One sister's initials were VCR. :)