Justice Antonin Scalia reported dead

[AGBF]

There's actually nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to take a vote within X number of days after a President's nomination which requires the Senate's approval before appointment.

However, the Constitution gives us three branches of government and insures that each branch has its power checked by other branches. Although in recent years there has been talk of the Executive Presidency and how the power of the executive branch has grown, its power is checked by the power of the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. As the power of each of those branches is checked by there being power in the the other branches.

Right now with a vacancy, The Supreme Court cannot decide a case if it is tied 4 to 4. That would render the Judicial branch of the government useless to check or balance the power of the Executive and Legislative branches as the framers of the Constitution intended. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to fail to do what the framers of the Constitution said should be done when a vacancy occurred on The Supreme Court.

 

[VRBeauty]

There's actually nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to take a vote within X number of days after a President's nomination which requires the Senate's approval before appointment.

However, the Constitution gives us three branches of government and insures that each branch has its power checked by other branches. Although in recent years there has been talk of the Executive Presidency and how the power of the executive branch has grown, its power is checked by the power of the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. As the power of each of those branches is checked by there being power in the the other branches.

Right now with a vacancy, The Supreme Court cannot decide a case if it is tied 4 to 4. That would render the Judicial branch of the government useless to check or balance the power of the Executive and Legislative branches as the framers of the Constitution intended. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to fail to do what the framers of the Constitution said should be done when a vacancy occurred on The Supreme Court.

But who would render that decision? Even if we all agree that it's unconstitutional (which of course would not happen) how would the Senate be held to account for its failure to uphold the constitution?

Anyhow, Justice Scalia did lead a rich and full life. And while I agree that the immediate politicalization of the vacancy he left is kind of appalling, I imagine he's having a good laugh - if not a good debate - over it all.

 

[MollyMalone]

There's actually nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to take a vote within X number of days after a President's nomination which requires the Senate's approval before appointment.

However, the Constitution gives us three branches of government and insures that each branch has its power checked by other branches. Although in recent years there has been talk of the Executive Presidency and how the power of the executive branch has grown, its power is checked by the power of the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. As the power of each of those branches is checked by there being power in the the other branches.

Right now with a vacancy, The Supreme Court cannot decide a case if it is tied 4 to 4. That would render the Judicial branch of the government useless to check or balance the power of the Executive and Legislative branches as the framers of the Constitution intended. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to fail to do what the framers of the Constitution said should be done when a vacancy occurred on The Supreme Court.

No matter how regrettable one deems it, the framers of the Constitution did not ensure that the Supreme Court will always have the full number of sitting Justices to which it is entitled. The constitutional requirement of Senate approval necessarily means that it is not a given that the President's nominee will be be appointed. Plus, in addition to not setting a deadline for the Senate to act, the Constitution does not require the President to make the initial nomination within a mandated time frame. Consequently, there have been 2 times in our country's history when the Supreme Court was without the full complement of Justices for more than 2 (!) years: April 1844 - August 1846 & May 1860 - July 1862 (President Lincoln waited for more than a year after his inauguration to nominate someone to fill the Court vacancy he had inherited).

In the event of a evenly split vote (which happened most recently because Justice Kagan had recused herself from participating), the lower court judgment is left standing by a very short order from the Court which informs the reader that the judgment below is affirmed because the Court was split ; such an affirmance is generally understood to carry no precedential authority.

That's a less than desirable outcome, so there have been occasions when the Court has "kicked the can down the road".

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * Anyhow, Justice Scalia did lead a rich and full life. And while I agree that the immediate politicalization of the vacancy he left is kind of appalling, I imagine he's having a good laugh - if not a good debate - over it all.

He had quite an infectious laugh! We once happened to be seated in a restaurant at a table that was catty-corner from the table where he, Justice Ginsburg & their spouses were sitting. They clearly delighted in each other's company & their merry fellowship put smiles on the faces of the wait staff & the diners around them.

 

[AGBF]

* * * Anyhow, Justice Scalia did lead a rich and full life. And while I agree that the immediate politicalization of the vacancy he left is kind of appalling, I imagine he's having a good laugh - if not a good debate - over it all.

He had quite an infectious laugh! We once happened to be seated in a restaurant at a table that was catty-corner from the table where he, Justice Ginsburg & their spouses were sitting. They clearly delighted in each other's company & their merry fellowship put smiles on the faces of the wait staff & the diners around them.

There have certainly been many tributes written already to his intellect and his humor. I have wondered if some of these were politically motivated or heartfelt, but from the number of them he has received, it appears Justice Scalia deserved them, no matter what the intent of the person delivering the comment.

I did not mean to criticize Justice Scalia when I made the comment above about "bozos". I was referring to Senators Cruz and McConnell; Justice Scalia was not in their league.

 

[missy]

What I find appealing is a man died. A man who served our country as a Supreme Court Justice. He's not even cold yet and the media and politics have taken over. My condolences to his family. I care out who replaces him, but I will care later. Right now I was just say a quiet prayer for his family.

MayK I agree and I find it appalling that some people (not the PSers who posted here) are celebrating his death. That is upsetting to me. He wasn't Hitler or Bin Laden and only people in that category are deaths I would be celebrating. Justice Scalia isn't anywhere close to being in that category and whether you liked or disliked his views and actions he served our country for a long time. As someone who doesn't personally know him so I could only imagine how his loved ones must feel. Celebrating his death is wrong.

My thoughts go out to his loved ones at this time.

Here is a brief synopsis of Justice Scalia for those who are interested. He was not a 2 dimensional figure and his opinions were not just down the party line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0

Just a snip that shows who he was as a Supreme Court Justice.

“We don’t sit here to make the law, to decide who ought to win,” Justice Scalia said. “We decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. And very often, if you’re a good judge, you don’t really like the result you’re reaching.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_a_truly_great_supreme_court_justice.html

To call him a to call him nothing more than a “conservative” would be to overlook the remarkable nuance and complexity of his jurisprudence.

I did not agree with many of Scalia's beliefs. I opposed his views on abortion and gay rights to name just 2. I also agree with the author I linked above that his gay rights opposition will remain forever a blotch on his record as it should.

When I was younger and angrier, I expected to cheer Scalia’s retirement, elated by his absence from the court. Today, I only feel overwhelming sadness. In my time covering the court, I’ve grown to admire the gruff, cantankerous man who lobs bombs and quips at nervous lawyers and bemused justices alike. Scalia was the justice you either loved or hated, relentlessly opinionated, representative of everything that was right or wrong with the Supreme Court. He was witty, unpredictable, caustic, indignant, and brilliant. He was an American original. And after the partisan howling over his legacy fades, that is how his country will remember him.

My hope is that whoever is nominated and ultimately becomes the next Supreme Court Justice of the USA has and uses common sense and intelligence and justice over simply adhering to their party line.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JoCo
You forgot to give Prez Obama credit for growing the national debt...

Good catch. It was late and I was tired.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Missy - who is celebrating his death? I hadn't heard of anyone cheering his passing; only celebrating his life.

 

[ksinger]

There's actually nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to take a vote within X number of days after a President's nomination which requires the Senate's approval before appointment.

However, the Constitution gives us three branches of government and insures that each branch has its power checked by other branches. Although in recent years there has been talk of the Executive Presidency and how the power of the executive branch has grown, its power is checked by the power of the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. As the power of each of those branches is checked by there being power in the the other branches.

Right now with a vacancy, The Supreme Court cannot decide a case if it is tied 4 to 4. That would render the Judicial branch of the government useless to check or balance the power of the Executive and Legislative branches as the framers of the Constitution intended. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to fail to do what the framers of the Constitution said should be done when a vacancy occurred on The Supreme Court.

No matter how regrettable one deems it, the framers of the Constitution did not ensure that the Supreme Court will always have the full number of sitting Justices to which it is entitled. The constitutional requirement of Senate approval necessarily means that it is not a given that the President's nominee will be be appointed. Plus, in addition to not setting a deadline for the Senate to act, the Constitution does not require the President to make the initial nomination within a mandated time frame. Consequently, there have been 2 times in our country's history when the Supreme Court was without the full complement of Justices for more than 2 (!) years: April 1844 - August 1846 & May 1860 - July 1862 (President Lincoln waited for more than a year after his inauguration to nominate someone to fill the Court vacancy he had inherited).

In the event of a evenly split vote (which happened most recently because Justice Kagan had recused herself from participating), the lower court judgment is left standing by a very short order from the Court which informs the reader that the judgment below is affirmed because the Court was split ; such an affirmance is generally understood to carry no precedential authority.

That's a less than desirable outcome, so there have been occasions when the Court has "kicked the can down the road".

Thank you sincerely for the history lesson. It is rare that my American history teacher husband doesn't know a history factoid, and even rarer that I can beat him to the punch in finding it if both of us don't know the answer. The second he rolled out of bed and was upright this morning, he was wondering aloud, and I was able to inform HIM. A coup in MY book.

 

[ksinger]

excerpted from the link below:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248

““The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said”
(ksinger’s reading of subtext: As always, we are obstructing the exercise of the illegitimate presidency of the black interloper in the White House, just as we vowed from day one. And the “American people” WE are talking about, who should have a voice, are OUR people, not the traitors who elected the interloper.)

McConnell’s move was all the more surprising considering his role as a self-appointing guardian of Senate tradition; But, more than anything, it reflects McConnell’s adjustment to his party’s ascendant right wing — and his controversial statement, during Obama’s first term, that his prime motive was to deny the president a second term in office. His declaration sets up a bruising political fight — welcomed by many Democrats — with Obama along with most of the GOP field.

McConnell usually waits to sound out his caucus before moving forward on such a weighty decisions, but his blockade fits a pattern of skirmishing on judicial appointments with the White House and Reid. McConnell has only allowed confirmations of 16 lower-court justices during his 14 months as majority leader, and a broad ideological swath of the party supports his efforts to shut down Obama's lifetime judicial appointments. No Republicans publicly broke with McConnell in the immediate hours after Scalia's death was reported.

But McConnell's decision also carries much risk: Republicans could very well lose the Senate in November. And by forestalling a replacement for the deeply conservative Scalia, McConnell could effectively keep the court deadlocked at a 4-4 ideological split between liberal and conservative justices.

Rubio said the “next president” must nominate a justice equal to Scalia, while Cruz bluntly said it is the Senate’s duty to put the brakes on confirmation for a year.

"The Senate Republicans will sacrifice their majority and their best shot at the White House on the altar of Ted Cruz if they block this nomination," said one top Democratic stategist."


Given that the gauntlet has been thrown before the body is cold, Obama needs to go ahead put forth his choice and the Dems then need to turn the camera squarely on the blatant obstruction and use that to every advantage in this election year. If an appointment is off the table, then it's time to make political hay. They need to make this into a huge election year issue of one more in-your-face example of Republicans obstructing Obama because he’s who he is and not because of what he does. Hang it around Republican necks like the rotting, stinky fish that it is and win back the senate and reduce the majority in the house.

 

[missy]

Missy - who is celebrating his death? I hadn't heard of anyone cheering his passing; only celebrating his life.

JoCoJenn, I was very careful to write no one here was celebrating his death. Just sharing what happened in my personal life last night. A good friend texted me how happy she was he is dead and it made me sad. I also know if this good friend feels that way there are probably a lot of people who feel this way.

Again I didn't agree with his socially conservative views but I cannot be happy he died. And I think he will be remembered as a good Supreme Court Justice overall. IMO.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Given that the gauntlet has been thrown before the body is cold, Obama needs to go ahead put forth his choice and the Dems then need to turn the camera squarely on the blatant obstruction and use that to every advantage in this election year. If an appointment is off the table, then it's time to make political hay. They need to make this into a huge election year issue of one more in-your-face example of Republicans obstructing Obama because he’s who he is and not because of what he does. Hang it around Republican necks like the rotting, stinky fish that it is and win back the senate and reduce the majority in the house.

Did you feel the same when the Reid-led Senate didn't do its job by putting ~350 House bills in a drawer? Why do you think Republicans end up with the Senate majority?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Missy - who is celebrating his death? I hadn't heard of anyone cheering his passing; only celebrating his life.

JoCoJenn, I was very careful to write no one here was celebrating his death. Just sharing what happened in my personal life last night. A good friend texted me how happy she was he is dead and it made me sad. I also know if this good friend feels that way there are probably a lot of people who feel this way.

Again I didn't agree with his socially conservative views but I cannot be happy he died. And I think he will be remembered as a good Supreme Court Justice overall. IMO.

Gotcha, and I am sorry if my question seemed "accusatory"; I did not mean it that way, but in sincerity because I hadn't seen/heard of anyone behaving in that regard. That is a shame. To your earlier point, there are only a few historical figures whose death I can imagine "celebrating" if you will, due to the level of evil they exuded.

 

[missy]

Missy - who is celebrating his death? I hadn't heard of anyone cheering his passing; only celebrating his life.

JoCoJenn, I was very careful to write no one here was celebrating his death. Just sharing what happened in my personal life last night. A good friend texted me how happy she was he is dead and it made me sad. I also know if this good friend feels that way there are probably a lot of people who feel this way.

Again I didn't agree with his socially conservative views but I cannot be happy he died. And I think he will be remembered as a good Supreme Court Justice overall. IMO.

Gotcha, and I am sorry if my question seemed "accusatory"; I did not mean it that way, but in sincerity because I hadn't seen/heard of anyone behaving in that regard. That is a shame. To your earlier point, there are only a few historical figures whose death I can imagine "celebrating" if you will, due to the level of evil they exuded.

Thanks JoCoJenn.

I just want to and need to add that this is a person I love and respect and she is an amazing woman in every way. So OK this one thing while not cool in my book doesn't take away from any of that other stuff I feel about her. I felt the need to add this because I am now regretting sharing this at all. I was carried away (and perhaps she was too by the heat of the moment because Justice Scalia views were very polarizing) by my feelings there and I shared them here when perhaps I should have kept my big fat mouth shut.

So I apologize to my dear friend and though we disagree on certain issues I love and respect her.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Missy - it's okay. we all have reasons why we feel the way we do about everything, be it personal experience, social influence, religious belief (or lack thereof). And while I am generally passionate and steadfast in mine, I do respect others' opinions as well because I don't know what their experiences are that shape them. I truly just wish I could better understand the opposing views better based on those experiences, history and facts (vs "it just should be" arguments, if you will).

 

[ksinger]

Given that the gauntlet has been thrown before the body is cold, Obama needs to go ahead put forth his choice and the Dems then need to turn the camera squarely on the blatant obstruction and use that to every advantage in this election year. If an appointment is off the table, then it's time to make political hay. They need to make this into a huge election year issue of one more in-your-face example of Republicans obstructing Obama because he’s who he is and not because of what he does. Hang it around Republican necks like the rotting, stinky fish that it is and win back the senate and reduce the majority in the house.

Did you feel the same when the Reid-led Senate didn't do its job by putting ~350 House bills in a drawer? Why do you think Republicans end up with the Senate majority?

Context. It is so very inconvenient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/07/are-300-house-bills-really-bottled-up-in-the-senate/

excerpt:
"It turned out that in 11 of the past 19 Congresses — more than half — more than 300 bills were waiting for Senate action by the time the Congress completed its work. In fact, there were nearly 200 or more House bills pending in every single Congress of the past 40 years. (For this Congress, the number currently is just shy of 350.)
.
.
.
You can see that the worst jam-up — when more than 700 bills passed in the House were ignored by the Senate — came in the 110th Congress, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate. So if anyone should have been upset at the Senate, it should have been Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then the house speaker. She had more than twice as many bills “stuck in the Senate” than Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the current speaker."

And I can think of a whole bunch of reasons that do not include bills waiting on action, for the reason that the Republicans ended up with a Senate majority. I'll give it to the Republicans though, that they are total masters of whipping up what is business as usual and how things have always worked, into something new and sinister and OMGOMGOMG. They can do that because a goodly portion of their constituents don't know that history did not actually begin just 8 years ago when they finally started paying attention to it.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And I can think of a whole bunch of reasons that do not include bills waiting on action, for the reason that the Republicans ended up with a Senate majority. I'll give it to the Republicans though, that they are total masters of whipping up what is business as usual and how things have always worked, into something new and sinister and OMGOMGOMG. They can do that because a goodly portion of their constituents don't know that history did not actually begin just 8 years ago when they finally started paying attention to it.

You did not answer my question. You cited a newspaper article, and insinuate GOP constituents are ignorant. Ignoring the latter because I find that somewhat offensive, I will take the former to mean you condone Reid's behavior because that's how it's always been, and thus should also then condone the same in like kind now ... because history makes it okay.

 

[ksinger]

And I can think of a whole bunch of reasons that do not include bills waiting on action, for the reason that the Republicans ended up with a Senate majority. I'll give it to the Republicans though, that they are total masters of whipping up what is business as usual and how things have always worked, into something new and sinister and OMGOMGOMG. They can do that because a goodly portion of their constituents don't know that history did not actually begin just 8 years ago when they finally started paying attention to it.

You did not answer my question. You cited a newspaper article, and insinuate GOP constituents are ignorant. Ignoring the latter because I find that somewhat offensive, I will take the former to mean you condone Reid's behavior because that's how it's always been, and thus should also then condone the same in like kind now ... because history makes it okay.

I post articles and analyses or consult the historian I married because I like a bit of context.

When you talk about Reid’s “behavior” I assume you are implying that it was bad behavior because of his supposed intent to hold up bills that would make everything work better. But somehow I’m not going to get my knickers in a twist about the number of bills (shown to be unremarkable) nor the actual bills at the time - which incuded such nationally pressing matters as H.R. 4119 - West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, and H.R.5468 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, as the "Camp Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office”.

These were merely two (that I confirmed via Kevin McCarthy’s bill tracker site), that “included dozens of ceremonial or parochial bills — part of 31 bills to name or rename post offices or federal buildings, at least nine bills to authorize a study, such as whether Mill Springs Battlefield in Kentucky should be included in the National Park System, and at least 13 that deal with federal land (transferring or exchanging, or expanding boundaries, for example). There are also two bills to strike commemorative coins, and a third to award a gold medal to golfer Jack Nicklaus.” While there are undoubtedly some in the list that could be complained about by the house Republicans, (complaining politicians being so rare and all) trotting out the number of 350 like each one is part of a plot, is misleading, to say the least.

So no, I do not see him doing his actual JOB of priortizing what comes up for consideration (his “behavior”), as on par with McConnell’s statement in 2010 that “Our top political priority over the next two years should be denying a second term to President Obama.” Wow. Not passing legislation based on the merits of the actual legislation, but thwarting Obama by any means, is the priority. A statement of GOP intent to thwart Obama that the country has watched unfold daily even in that second term, with over 50 attempts to repeal the ACA, and with a continued GOP willingness to burn the house down rather than compromise and actually govern.

Polls repeatedly show that gridlock and things like the shutdown in 2013, are laid primarily at the feet of the GOP, what with it being dragged around by the Hasturt Rule in the house, which means they are held hostage by the crazy wing of the GOP. This flat out refusal of the senate GOP, to even consider a nominee simply because of loathing the person doing the nominating, should be cast in the same light, and hung around their necks at every opportunity.

What’s going to be fun is seeing how quickly this SC deal, causes Ryan to totally lose his already tenuous control of the house. I think the budget has likely been derailed big time. And this is just going to make the house and senate seats up for grabs this cycle, that much more difficult by focusing attention on both houses unwillingness/inability to govern. I'm thinking the ire will come down hardest on the GOP on this one. And the likely presidential candidate beneficiaries will be Trump and Sanders as disgust grows. But really, with this, all bets are off. This is a complication no one wanted and here we are...

I think the get out the votes efforts have just gotten seriously bloody.

This is going to be an election for the history books, no doubt about it.

 

[Demon]

But I follow this chick on FB and Twitter and she makes me laugh maniacally.

Wow, Betty Bowers! Landover Baptist is still out there?

 

[marymm]

Though I disagreed vehemently with his personal politics/interpretation of the Constitution, I believe Mr. Justice Scalia was a man of principle, and that his lifetime was devoted to protecting/serving the Constitution according to the original meaning theory. He had my respect as an Associate Justice and also as an intellectual giant. Justice Scalia, thank you for your service to the United States; may you rest in peace.

 

[kenny]

My apology to MayK.
I regret what I posted.

 

[kenny]

I believe Mr. Justice Scalia was a man of principle, and that his lifetime was devoted to protecting/serving the Constitution according to the original meaning theory.

Hitler was a man of principle too ... F-ed up principles.

"Original meaning"?
Slavery, only male landowners having the vote were 'original' too.
But of course conservatives want to conserve while liberals want to liberate.
Some cling to the past while others pull us into the future.

Hopefully over time bad things get better.
Wrongs get righted.
This is good, not bad.

Saying that how things were 228 years ago was perfect and should be preserved forever is pretty ignorant.

 

[partgypsy]

In case people are wondering, there is no precedent that a president in the last year of their sitting shouldn't have a judge nominated and confirmed. In fact the last time that happened, it was President Reagan with a Democratic-led senate who approved.
I remember that and even though there was rejection of initial candidates, at least what politicians said, is that they are vetting in order to have the best candidate become Justice. The fact that the GOP-led senate is announcing in advance, before a candidate is even named, that they will reject and sit on their hands, is reprehensible, and another example of putting their own political agenda over what is best for the country.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

 

[marymm]

I believe Mr. Justice Scalia was a man of principle, and that his lifetime was devoted to protecting/serving the Constitution according to the original meaning theory.

Hitler was a man of principle too ... F-ed up principles.

"Original meaning"?
Slavery, only male landowners having the vote were 'original' too.
But of course conservatives want to conserve while liberals want to liberate.
Some cling to the past while others pull us into the future.

Hopefully over time bad things get better.
Wrongs get righted.
This is good, not bad.

Saying that how things were 228 years ago was perfect and should be preserved forever is pretty ignorant.

Justice Scalia wasn't against amending the Constitution; he was against creative interpretation of it.

 

[ksinger]

Well, in other developments, Robert Reich's FB page had this post a bit ago. I was laughing as I read it. I'm sure Obama has long had a nominee in mind for just such an eventuality as what we now have, but McConnell has seriously put the GOP elections on the line for the sake of hating Obama. If Obama does nominate this guy, and McConnell toes his own line, it's going to screw the senate GOP to the wall.

Text of Reich's post:

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.

Since he became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t tipped his hand. But I discovered one morsel of information that might interest you: In 2000, he worked on Al Gore’s legal team in the infamous Supreme Court case of “Bush v. Gore.”

My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee with get a majority of Senate votes. What do you think?

 

[partgypsy]

I believe Mr. Justice Scalia was a man of principle, and that his lifetime was devoted to protecting/serving the Constitution according to the original meaning theory.

Hitler was a man of principle too ... F-ed up principles.

"Original meaning"?
Slavery, only male landowners having the vote were 'original' too.
But of course conservatives want to conserve while liberals want to liberate.
Some cling to the past while others pull us into the future.

Hopefully over time bad things get better.
Wrongs get righted.
This is good, not bad.

Saying that how things were 228 years ago was perfect and should be preserved forever is pretty ignorant.

Yes there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. To interpret so narrowly that the letter of the law can be used to subvert the spirit of the law is brillant, but it undermines the purpose of the document. And there are times that he agrees with what I consider radical ideas, for example that a corporation can be considered a "person". I don't see that anywhere in the constitution.

 

[Niel]

And I can think of a whole bunch of reasons that do not include bills waiting on action, for the reason that the Republicans ended up with a Senate majority. I'll give it to the Republicans though, that they are total masters of whipping up what is business as usual and how things have always worked, into something new and sinister and OMGOMGOMG. They can do that because a goodly portion of their constituents don't know that history did not actually begin just 8 years ago when they finally started paying attention to it.

You did not answer my question. You cited a newspaper article, and insinuate GOP constituents are ignorant. Ignoring the latter because I find that somewhat offensive, I will take the former to mean you condone Reid's behavior because that's how it's always been, and thus should also then condone the same in like kind now ... because history makes it okay.

I post articles and analyses or consult the historian I married because I like a bit of context.

When you talk about Reid’s “behavior” I assume you are implying that it was bad behavior because of his supposed intent to hold up bills that would make everything work better. But somehow I’m not going to get my knickers in a twist about the number of bills (shown to be unremarkable) nor the actual bills at the time - which incuded such nationally pressing matters as H.R. 4119 - West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, and H.R.5468 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, as the "Camp Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office”.

These were merely two (that I confirmed via Kevin McCarthy’s bill tracker site), that “included dozens of ceremonial or parochial bills — part of 31 bills to name or rename post offices or federal buildings, at least nine bills to authorize a study, such as whether Mill Springs Battlefield in Kentucky should be included in the National Park System, and at least 13 that deal with federal land (transferring or exchanging, or expanding boundaries, for example). There are also two bills to strike commemorative coins, and a third to award a gold medal to golfer Jack Nicklaus.” While there are undoubtedly some in the list that could be complained about by the house Republicans, (complaining politicians being so rare and all) trotting out the number of 350 like each one is part of a plot, is misleading, to say the least.

So no, I do not see him doing his actual JOB of priortizing what comes up for consideration (his “behavior”), as on par with McConnell’s statement in 2010 that “Our top political priority over the next two years should be denying a second term to President Obama.” Wow. Not passing legislation based on the merits of the actual legislation, but thwarting Obama by any means, is the priority. A statement of GOP intent to thwart Obama that the country has watched unfold daily even in that second term, with over 50 attempts to repeal the ACA, and with a continued GOP willingness to burn the house down rather than compromise and actually govern.

Polls repeatedly show that gridlock and things like the shutdown in 2013, are laid primarily at the feet of the GOP, what with it being dragged around by the Hasturt Rule in the house, which means they are held hostage by the crazy wing of the GOP. This flat out refusal of the senate GOP, to even consider a nominee simply because of loathing the person doing the nominating, should be cast in the same light, and hung around their necks at every opportunity.

What’s going to be fun is seeing how quickly this SC deal, causes Ryan to totally lose his already tenuous control of the house. I think the budget has likely been derailed big time. And this is just going to make the house and senate seats up for grabs this cycle, that much more difficult by focusing attention on both houses unwillingness/inability to govern. I'm thinking the ire will come down hardest on the GOP on this one. And the likely presidential candidate beneficiaries will be Trump and Sanders as disgust grows. But really, with this, all bets are off. This is a complication no one wanted and here we are...

I think the get out the votes efforts have just gotten seriously bloody.

This is going to be an election for the history books, no doubt about it.

Very well put.

 

[Mayk]

My apology to MayK.
I regret what I posted.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

 

[Maria D]

Well, in other developments, Robert Reich's FB page had this post a bit ago. I was laughing as I read it. I'm sure Obama has long had a nominee in mind for just such an eventuality as what we now have, but McConnell has seriously put the GOP elections on the line for the sake of hating Obama. If Obama does nominate this guy, and McConnell toes his own line, it's going to screw the senate GOP to the wall.

Text of Reich's post:

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.

Since he became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t tipped his hand. But I discovered one morsel of information that might interest you: In 2000, he worked on Al Gore’s legal team in the infamous Supreme Court case of “Bush v. Gore.”

My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee with get a majority of Senate votes. What do you think?

I have been learning about Srinivasan today as well, as news sites are speculating that he might be nominated. On the one hand, I can't fathom that the Republicans would go through with their threat and not even consider him, it would be an irrevocable mistake. On the other hand, the party is in such shambles that Trump is their front runner! So who knows.

McConnell's clueless impertinence when he says that Obama should wait because "the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice" is astonishing. The American people spoke when they elected Obama. Twice. But yeah, McConnell just can't get over the fact that Obama is our president, has been for the last seven years, and will continue for yet another. Sorry Mitchy, if you don't like it, move.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Gypsy|

Several economists have said that Bernie Sander's economic plans are those that are the most sound. So tell me DF, are you going to vote for him???

No, of course not.

[/quote]


Yes, If he can promise me a FREE 2ct diamond. I'm like most college kids nowadays I want everything for FREE!..
I also want a FREE new car since my truck is now 15 yrs old.