Scalia found dead.
- Thread starter Mntneer
- Start date
Don't think as much as you would anticipate. Republicans have to approve in the Senate. Can it be delayed a full year? Probably if the appointment is too liberal. Could reject a couple after hearings and that should take us into 2017
This is a monumental shift; whether Obama gets his third justice approved or not. Scalia was vocal, a conservative icon and often the author of the majority conservative opinions. Scalia's death may prove to be the end of old school conservatism in the SC for years to come. Justice Thomas is the only other uber conservative left; however, he is quiet and rarely asks questions in oral arguments. Conservatives better hope that a republican wins the Presidential race; otherwise, the country is looking at likely 3 Democratic appointees--left leaning majority in the SC for the tenure of those justice's lifetime. Republicans control the Congress now; if that changes and there's a democratic president, the face of American jurisprudence will forever be altered.
Certainly. The next President could conceivably chose up to 4 to go along with the current 4 liberal Justices. The only saving grace for the Country is the inability to accurately predict the degree of liberalism - or conservatism. They do have a tendency to to disappoint when they have lifetime appointments. Most of the disappointment has been with the appointment of Conservatives who become quiet liberal after a few years on the court. It would be nice for a couple liberals to realize this country cannot long survive with soooo many socialist - liberal policies.
The last SC Justice to die was Rehnquist; his successor, John Roberts was appointed and confirmed 26 days after Rehnquist's death. Senate took app. 6 months to confirm Obama's most recent choice for Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Each of the candidates in their respective debates should be asked if they were President, should they be allowed (as per the Constitution) to make an SC appointment in the fourth or potentially eighth year of his/her Presidential term.
They asked the gop candidates already and no shock of their answers. Obama shouldn't be allowed but if they were president, they most certainly move forward. Nothing like exposed hypocrisy.
But the best part was the moderator fact check Cruz incorrect comments and Cruz's disbelief look. These idiots are so clueless
The longest that it has ever taken to appoint an SC justice in the history of the US is 125 days from the previous justice's tenure. The Senate will have to hold out 361 days from today to successfully stall or block Obama's choice.
I dont think they will delay it that long unless the nominee is extremely controversial.
Whew! Thank goodness. I would seriously be worried if you felt any other way.
Reagan, often mentioned and revered in GOP debates, appointed Justice Stevens in 1988--an election year with 97-0 vote from Senate. I was not aware that Article 2 of the Constitution was amended since 1988.
I heard Jeff Sessions say tonight that McConnell will not allow a vote on any nomination. They think the American people should be involved. Whatever that means. As if the American people didn't elect Obama....twice. They want to wait until after the election in November. What a bunch of babies. Completely irresponsible.
What else would you expect them to say? Do you remember what happened in 1987 when Justice Powell retired? I doubt you know what happened so let me refresh your memory. Senate Democrats asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever Reagan nominated to replace him. It's called politics and it works both ways.
I can see how you'd respond that way. It is hard to defend a bunch of whiny piss babies who basically say that they won't have a vote on anyone the President nominates. It is not only childish for McConnell to do this, it is irresponsible for the leader of the Senate to allow a vacancy on the SC to continue for essentially a year. What's next, if Hillary is elected, don't hold a vote for 4 years? 8? Of course, this is the same guy who said when Obama was elected in 08 that his primary job in the Senate was to make BO a one-termer. His shallowness and disrespect for the Constitution and our form of government is at least consistent.
You missed the point. It was about the rhetoric. Do you really think no one would get approved? I'm sure you know that Kennedy was a compromise.
I've followed politics my whole life and remember that Kennedy was nominated after Bork was not approved (thank god). There was never any categorical claim by the Dems not to approve a RR nominee. Prove your statement.
Last edited:
I congratulate you with coming up with a plausible rationale for his position. However, he's not been willing to negotiate with Obama on anything to date.
No, I don't recall it that way. I'm sure some said to block and delay. But Reagan appointed Bork and he got shut down and then nominated Kennedy and he was confirmed. Facts are facts. You are not entitled to make up your own.
I responded back without reading the rest of the thread and seen you already shredded the wingnut on the 1988 history. And no, these nuts will never learn.
Probaby no Congressional Republicans left in DC today after kicking off their 9 month Spring recess last night.......
Which gives Obama the option of a recess appointment which has been done in the past. That would force the Senate to address the appointment. probably would be ultimately rejected unless it was someone palatable to mainstream repubs. But it would force their hand.