Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away

#251
#251
ClearwaterVol said:
So...

Assuming that Trump get the WH and a liberal justice retires, would you lobby for Trump to appoint a liberal judge?

And why should the court stay in its present makeup? right now there are 4 republican appointees and 4 dem appointees. It is hardly a lopsided court.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed. Right now we have four conservative and four liberal and one swing moderate. It should stay that way.
 
#253
#253
Elections have consequences both ways. If Barry hadn't been so Marxist his first term maybe the Congress doesn't swing so conservative. Now he has to appoint someone the more conservative Senate approves of because of his Marxist policies. Just the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#254
#254
ClearwaterVol said:
So...

Assuming that Trump get the WH and a liberal justice retires, would you lobby for Trump to appoint a liberal judge?

And why should the court stay in its present makeup? right now there are 4 republican appointees and 4 dem appointees. It is hardly a lopsided court.
Click to expand...

I do agree somewhat with the GOP Senators on this point. As a lame duck President, Obama should be working with all of the Senatorial leaders to determine who might be a best fit. And going from there to the nomination phase. You and I both know that's the right (read bipartisan) thing to do in this situation given the circumstances.

Otherwise, he very well could hold off and let it be on his successor. Which again, is the bipartisan (read right) thing to do instead of trying to shove in a nominee that won't get confirmed.
 
#256
#256
lawgator1 said:
I see someone got their talking points email/facebook/Drudge Report today.
Click to expand...
If you read the Drudge Report today, then you know that the Democrat controlled Senate in 1960 passed a measure to prohibit Republican Pres. Dwight Eisenhower from making a recess Supreme Court appointment in an election year.

Face the facts counselor, if the Dems controlled the Senate, and there was a Republican Pres, it would go down the same way. The appt. would be stalled and blocked by either side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#257
#257
Grand Vol said:
I do agree somewhat with the GOP Senators on this point. As a lame duck President, Obama should be working with all of the Senatorial leaders to determine who might be a best fit. And going from there to the nomination phase. You and I both know that's the right (read bipartisan) thing to do in this situation given the circumstances.

Otherwise, he very well could hold off and let it be on his successor. Which again, is the bipartisan (read right) thing to do instead of trying to shove in a nominee that won't get confirmed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your first approach. It would be pragmatic, but the Republicans have come out with a knee jerk response and reduced the odds of compromise. Had the response been what you suggested, they could have won over a lot of people.

I do have a question, at what point in the presidency does the refusal to consider a nominee become a viable and appropriate action by the Senate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#258
#258
An entirely separate discussion, but the balancing act going on with SCOTUS leads to these situations.

IMO...a court composed primarily of moderate justices is a simpler and cleaner method of achieving necessary balance. A makeup of 2 liberal, 5 moderate and 2 conservative would be ideal, but the key is moderation.

Of course then we get into how one defines a moderate.
 
#259
#259
1972 Grad said:
If you read the Drudge Report today, then you know that the Democrat controlled Senate in 1960 passed a measure to prohibit Republican Pres. Dwight Eisenhower from making a recess Supreme Court appointment in an election year.

Face the facts counselor, if the Dems controlled the Senate, and there was a Republican Pres, it would go down the same way. The appt. would be stalled and blocked by either side.
Click to expand...

No doubt about it; they're all the same no matter how much they proclaim otherwise.
 
#260
#260
gcbvol said:
An entirely separate discussion, but the balancing act going on with SCOTUS leads to these situations.

IMO...a court composed primarily of moderate justices is a simpler and cleaner method of achieving necessary balance. A makeup of 2 liberal, 5 moderate and 2 conservative would be ideal, but the key is moderation.

Of course then we get into how one defines a moderate.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I'm generally an advise and consent guy with the emphasis on consent. If the nominee isn't a full on whacko, extremist I feel they typically should be confirmed.

That said, I think balance is important. Replacing a conservative with a liberal is just not in the best interests of the country and yes I'd feel the same if Ginsburg is out during a GOP POTUShip.
 
#261
#261
Grand Vol said:
I do agree somewhat with the GOP Senators on this point. As a lame duck President, Obama should be working with all of the Senatorial leaders to determine who might be a best fit. And going from there to the nomination phase. You and I both know that's the right (read bipartisan) thing to do in this situation given the circumstances.

Otherwise, he very well could hold off and let it be on his successor. Which again, is the bipartisan (read right) thing to do instead of trying to shove in a nominee that won't get confirmed.
Click to expand...

That's a slippery slope GV. At best we get a moderate working with Obama.
 
#262
#262
gcbvol said:
No doubt about it; they're all the same no matter how much they proclaim otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yep. Everything Dems are complaining about now they did in the past and what the GOP is planning are things they complained about.

This would be an opportunity for a POTUS who truly cared about the divisive nature of DC to make a move in the interest of unity but that simply won't happen.
 
#263
#263
What would the Dems do in our situation? Well, look what they did to Bork. Look what they tried to do to Thomas. The only reason Thomas got confirmed is because he was black and he smartly played the race card. Hell they even brought Anita Hill out of the closet against him.
 
#264
#264
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't disagree with your first approach. It would be pragmatic, but the Republicans have come out with a knee jerk response and reduced the odds of compromise. Had the response been what you suggested, they could have won over a lot of people.
Click to expand...

On this, I partially agree. The problem stems from both sides of the equation. Obama and his "my way or else" mentality (and don't even argue that point) and Congress already fortifying their position that anyone he nominates will be bad. And both the the historical backing behind them. Both are going to be the bad guys in the eyes of their respective bases so it's honestly a moot point.

ClearwaterVol said:
I do have a question, at what point in the presidency does the refusal to consider a nominee become a viable and appropriate action by the Senate?
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "refusal." Are you asking from the point of view that the Senate didn't vote to confirm the nominee? Or a flat out "NO!" from the beginning with the appropriate soundbites for the news channels?
 
#265
#265
volinbham said:
I agree.

I'm generally an advise and consent guy with the emphasis on consent. If the nominee isn't a full on whacko, extremist I feel they typically should be confirmed.

That said, I think balance is important. Replacing a conservative with a liberal is just not in the best interests of the country and yes I'd feel the same if Ginsburg is out during a GOP POTUShip.
Click to expand...

Balance is absolutely critical and I could not agree with you more. A lopsided SCOTUS in either direction is bad news for the country.

It's why I think the president will nominate a moderate-preferably right-leaning. It doesn't really matter because no one will be confirmed, but there's no way he nominates a liberal justice to fill Scalia's seat.

Still, at some point I wish our government leaders would move in the direction of moderation. RBG's seat will likely be vacant soon enough. If both seats were populated by moderates it would be a big win, IMO. Sadly, I don't see it.
 
#266
#266
Sandvol said:
That's a slippery slope GV. At best we get a moderate working with Obama.
Click to expand...

And at worst we get gridlock until January of 2017. And potentially have to repeat the process if the DNC gets the White House.

That's not good for the nation either.
 
#268
#268
Really this election should be about this Supreme Court seat. The country can decide if they like their guns, their borders, their healthcare, their EPA, etc. etc.
 
#269
#269
Sandvol said:
Gridlock's a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It certainly can be. It means neither side is willing to compromise on anything regardless of the circumstances. And that's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying Congress or Obama needs to bend over backwards for each other, but a decent amount of compromise on what is going to be a huge issue needs to be worked out. Obama doesn't have to nominate someone completely left wing. Congress doesn't have to automatically jump to "nay" over his nominee. A little give and take on both sides would be in order unless they both agree that postponing it until January would be best.

And honestly, that's a win-win for both sides.
 
#270
#270
Grand Vol said:
I honestly don't know anything about most of this "list" but I figure some of our legal types would know a few of the names and possibly shed some insight:

Supreme Court Short List? Deep bench of potential nominees to succeed Scalia | Fox News

TL;DR list:

  • Loretta Lynch, attorney general
  • Judge Patricia Millett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • Judge Sri Srinivasan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • Judge Paul Watford, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Judge Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Kamala Harris, California attorney general
  • Kathryn Ruemmler, former Obama White House Counsel
  • Judge Jane Kelly, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Judge David Barron, 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Judge Diane Wood, 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Judge Merrick Garland, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Paul Clement, former U.S. solicitor general
  • Judge Brett Kavanaugh, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
  • Judge Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
    [*]Sen. Mike Lee, Republican from Utah
Click to expand...

Mike Lee would make a great Supreme Court Justice nominee in this climate. His record in congress is solid. Actually, I can't believe he could make the short list for this administration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#271
#271
Grand Vol said:
It certainly can be. It means neither side is willing to compromise on anything regardless of the circumstances. And that's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying Congress or Obama needs to bend over backwards for each other, but a decent amount of compromise on what is going to be a huge issue needs to be worked out. Obama doesn't have to nominate someone completely left wing. Congress doesn't have to automatically jump to "nay" over his nominee. A little give and take on both sides would be in order unless they both agree that postponing it until January would be best.

And honestly, that's a win-win for both sides.
Click to expand...

Compromise is always an acquiescence to statism.
 
#272
#272
gcbvol said:
An entirely separate discussion, but the balancing act going on with SCOTUS leads to these situations.

IMO...a court composed primarily of moderate justices is a simpler and cleaner method of achieving necessary balance. A makeup of 2 liberal, 5 moderate and 2 conservative would be ideal, but the key is moderation.

Of course then we get into how one defines a moderate.
Click to expand...

A 10 year term for all Federal Judges makes more sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#273
#273
There is nothing that says supreme court must have 9 justices. It went for a very long time with just 6, so it could go with 8 for a year. Also, on 1960 the Democrats in the senate passed a resolution stating that there should be NO justice appointments during an election year. Let's just go by their rules, but they only want to go by their rules when it's good for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top