Justice Antonin Scalia reported dead

[AGBF]

"The New York Times" on-line published this short piece. It describes what Senator Bernie Sanders said on Saturday, speaking about the Republicans who have voiced the desire to see the next president, not our current president, nominate a Supreme Court justice to take Justice Scalia's seat.

“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of our Constitution of the United States,” Mr. Sanders said. “Apparently, they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that.” (Several Republican candidates said President Obama should let the next president choose the justice or urged the Senate to block the nomination.)

“I very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee and that we can get that nominee confirmed as soon as possible,” Mr. Sanders said. “The Supreme Court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member.”

To me that about says it all. According to the Constitution of the United States the President appoints members of The Supreme Court. All the Senate does is to advise and consent. Please let me know if the Constitution is still in place or if there was a coup d'état. Did a junta take over?

AGBF

 

[ksinger]

Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.

"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."

"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing.

….unless that president is only 3/5 of one, and the American PEOPLE who elected him are suspect too…then you get this…

Mitch McConnell - 2016:

"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."

 

[AGBF]

This morning it hit me that if I were President Obama and the Congress attempted to block me from nominating someone to The Supreme Court, I might claim that it was a constitutional issue, as I just stated above, and ask the current Supreme Court to decide it on an expedited basis.

The Supreme Court can tie, but it might not tie. The constitutional issue is clear. If The Court agreed to hear the case (and it is an important one), it might decide once and for all whether Congress can indefinitely block a president from putting someone on The Court.

This is not like a filibuster. This is not some internecine congressional struggle that one branch of the government joins in by itself where one party attempts to stop the other party. It is one branch attempting to usurp the powers of another branch entirely and thus is far more dangerous. The Senate should not be able to take away the president's right to put someone on The Supreme Court. If they can stop one, when will their power end? Can they force a president from a party they don't like-an opposing party-to sit out his entire term without appointing someone? If we allow politics to decide when a president can act, that could happen. Unless we recognize that this is a constitutional issue.

 

[missy]

You know what bothers me about the Supreme Court Justices in general? That once you are appointed you are in for life as long as you practice "good behavior" (whatever that really means). I know it would take changing the Constitution but I think that should be changed.

When the Constitution was created in the 18th century it was a very different world that it is today and it meant something different to be appointed for life. No one should be safe in that important position for life because it is just too long and there is too much room for abuse of power IMO and it gives them too much control over things they should not be able to control.

 

[the_mother_thing]

In 2008, Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block Bush nominees, so why not take a page out of his book?

I posted this on another forum discussing this issue:

Since there are cases currently before the SCOTUS specifically on the constitutionality of some of the President's actions, might that not render his nomination (in these circumstances) a conflict of interest to some degree? In my mind - regardless of which party is in the WH or controls the senate - I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical. Again - I say this regardless of what party is in which position. In my mind, it's like a defendant being given sole choice in picking his/her jury.

This is WHY the founders established the balance of powers among the branches, and precisely why I feel the GOP Senators are doing the right thing to deny any Obama nominee.

 

[Tekate]

Liberals liberate.

Yet,the poor remain poor, jobless citizens have given up hope, we still have a national homeless problem, and record number of food stamp recipients. Doesn't sound very liberating to me.

Were the poor not poor under Bush? did we not have a national homeless problem under a Republican? a record number of food stamp users under obama can be stated as true.. but did republicans have the worst recession since 1929 on their watch? Obama elected and off we go on a republican induced recession.. to me all republican rhetoric about the poor is just that.. they are the ones that allow jobs to be offshored, they allowed profit to take from labor.. they send jobs to Mexico.. they employ illegal aliens.

 

[Tekate]

So I understand.. you are asking the President to not do is job? not do his constitutional duty..

Schumer may have called to block but I cannot find any information that the democrats did, just Bork.. a terrible jurist.

If the republicans do block Obama, I would say with very little doubt that you will be looking at Clinton or Sanders as your next
president. It will be a tsunami of anger at obstructionist republicans. They are not in a position of a win here.

A balance of power in the branches? doesn't that mean the branches not be obstructionists?

In 2008, Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block Bush nominees, so why not take a page out of his book?

I posted this on another forum discussing this issue:

Since there are cases currently before the SCOTUS specifically on the constitutionality of some of the President's actions, might that not render his nomination (in these circumstances) a conflict of interest to some degree? In my mind - regardless of which party is in the WH or controls the senate - I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical. Again - I say this regardless of what party is in which position. In my mind, it's like a defendant being given sole choice in picking his/her jury.

This is WHY the founders established the balance of powers among the branches, and precisely why I feel the GOP Senators are doing the right thing to deny any Obama nominee.

 

[Tekate]

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?

Why did Obama win both elections do you think?

 

[AGBF]

I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical.

If the Senate was supposed to insure a fair nominee, some of the Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Reagan would never have been allowed to serve! I thought the only job requirement was to know the law (which is blatantly unfair). As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majesty, makes it unlawful for the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges". (I am quoting from memory, so please forgive me if the translation is imperfect.)

AGBF

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I think the passing of Justice Scalia matters more to the conservatives than it does to everybody else. He was the flag bearer for the conservatives on the SC. Thus the reactions we have gotten. But, I don't see this as a constitutional issue. The President will nominate, and the Senate may deny or delay a vote up or down. Molly Malone explained the procedures that are in place in case of tie decisions, which allows the lower court decision to stand.

For those of you who think that if the Senate refuses to confirm a nominee that the public will rise up and vote in the democrats, you are dreaming. This has become an electorate of extremes as shown in the candidates that are running, and even by some of the posts of people on this thread. There really is a lot of anger out there and the candidates fan the fire.

I was thinking about jobs going abroad to gain better profits and cheaper goods, for the poor and the working class, while keeping many jobs left here at low wages. So, cheaper goods in exchange for low paying jobs. What a trade off. That is where new taxes ought to be placed. For every job a company brings to another country, they should pay a recurring tax. Apple, which employs a million workers in China and holds so much cash, it can pay a tax without it being an undue burden. Nafta, which I believe was formed under Bill Clinton hasn't worked so well for the lower and middle classes. Both parties are responsible. I digressed, I know.

Lets keep our eyes on this upcoming election. Its a beaut!

Annette

 

[partgypsy]

So I understand.. you are asking the President to not do is job? not do his constitutional duty..

Schumer may have called to block but I cannot find any information that the democrats did, just Bork.. a terrible jurist.

If the republicans do block Obama, I would say with very little doubt that you will be looking at Clinton or Sanders as your next
president. It will be a tsunami of anger at obstructionist republicans. They are not in a position of a win here.

A balance of power in the branches? doesn't that mean the branches not be obstructionists?

In 2008, Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block Bush nominees, so why not take a page out of his book?

I posted this on another forum discussing this issue:

Since there are cases currently before the SCOTUS specifically on the constitutionality of some of the President's actions, might that not render his nomination (in these circumstances) a conflict of interest to some degree? In my mind - regardless of which party is in the WH or controls the senate - I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical. Again - I say this regardless of what party is in which position. In my mind, it's like a defendant being given sole choice in picking his/her jury.

This is WHY the founders established the balance of powers among the branches, and precisely why I feel the GOP Senators are doing the right thing to deny any Obama nominee.

Yeah the only jurist "blocked" by the opposing party, was Bork. He participated in what is called the "Saturday night massacre", part of the Watergate scandal. Nixon was being investigated by special prosecuter Cox. Nixon ordered his Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than complying with an order he characterised as "fundamentally wrong" (and later determined to be illegal). Bork then became acting Attorney General and fired Cox. Strangely despite the determination of illegality, no consequences occurred for Bork. In fact Bork later reported that Nixon in quid pro quo offered him a seat on the supreme court. (Nixon was unable to fulfil his promise as Watergate was uncovered and he was forced to resign). However Reagan then tried to fulfill this promise.

What was troubling about Bork, not only the fact he participated in illegal activities, as well as his troubling beliefs that women and african American rights should be rolled back, was his view of executive supremacy, that the president should have disproportinate power over the other branches. Here is a clear case of conflict of interest, a president nominating a judge with the belief that president should have special powers. It is pretty clear he was unfit to hold the position.

The fact that Mitch announced ahead of time that they were going to block any and all nominees, shows your belief that they are doing this "to ensure a "balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench" is farcical. And in fact it is NOT the Senate's job to ensure a "balanced and objective, fair" nominee is placed, and never has been.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Liberals liberate.

Yet,the poor remain poor, jobless citizens have given up hope, we still have a national homeless problem, and record number of food stamp recipients. Doesn't sound very liberating to me.

Were the poor not poor under Bush? did we not have a national homeless problem under a Republican? a record number of food stamp users under obama can be stated as true.. but did republicans have the worst recession since 1929 on their watch? Obama elected and off we go on a republican induced recession.. to me all republican rhetoric about the poor is just that.. they are the ones that allow jobs to be offshored, they allowed profit to take from labor.. they send jobs to Mexico.. they employ illegal aliens.

I did NOT say those problems did not exist under a GOP admin. I was stating that Kenny's statement was false. Unless you can show me that all of these problems have been solved every time there is a Dem admin leader.

So I understand.. you are asking the President to not do is job? not do his constitutional duty..

Schumer may have called to block but I cannot find any information that the democrats did, just Bork.. a terrible jurist.

If the republicans do block Obama, I would say with very little doubt that you will be looking at Clinton or Sanders as your next
president. It will be a tsunami of anger at obstructionist republicans. They are not in a position of a win here.

A balance of power in the branches? doesn't that mean the branches not be obstructionists?

In 2008, Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block Bush nominees, so why not take a page out of his book?

I posted this on another forum discussing this issue:

Since there are cases currently before the SCOTUS specifically on the constitutionality of some of the President's actions, might that not render his nomination (in these circumstances) a conflict of interest to some degree? In my mind - regardless of which party is in the WH or controls the senate - I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical. Again - I say this regardless of what party is in which position. In my mind, it's like a defendant being given sole choice in picking his/her jury.

This is WHY the founders established the balance of powers among the branches, and precisely why I feel the GOP Senators are doing the right thing to deny any Obama nominee.

Again, I did not say the pres shouldn't do his job. Please do not twist my words; it doesn't help the discussion.

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?

Why did Obama win both elections do you think?

Because people bought his hope-change song and dance. And that's what they got. Higher national debt, more part time jobs (instead of FT), higher insurance premiums ... lots of change. Interestingly enough, while I was not a Romney fan, much of what he stated turned out to be right.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think that makes the actions of the Senate to ensure a balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench even more critical.

If the Senate was supposed to insure a fair nominee, some of the Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Reagan would never have been allowed to serve! I thought the only job requirement was to know the law (which is blatantly unfair). As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majesty, makes it unlawful for the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges". (I am quoting from memory, so please forgive me if the translation is imperfect.)

AGBF

I didn't say that was the constitutional obligation of the senate; just that I feel that's why it's important right now. Because on its face, when there are items for dispute before the bench, to have the "defendant" pick the likely deciding vote seems a conflict of interest.

 

[the_mother_thing]

[
The fact that Mitch announced ahead of time that they were going to block any and all nominees, shows your belief that they are doing this "to ensure a "balanced and objective, fair nominee to the bench" is farcical. And in fact it is NOT the Senate's job to ensure a "balanced and objective, fair" nominee is placed, and never has been.

#1 - MM was an idiot to state what he did.

#2 - How does what MM said infer what I believe? He doesn't speak for me.

#3 - again, I did not say that was the senate's job; but that for those reasons, I feel they should prevent an Obama nominee.


But, I digress. As always in these political discussions, an opposing opinion to the majority liberal-minded membership is twisted to infer what was not stated, which doesn't make for a very respectful discussion. It's futile, and frankly not worth the effort nor frustration.

 

[Tekate]

Hi,

I think the passing of Justice Scalia matters more to the conservatives than it does to everybody else. He was the flag bearer for the conservatives on the SC. Thus the reactions we have gotten. But, I don't see this as a constitutional issue. The President will nominate, and the Senate may deny or delay a vote up or down. Molly Malone explained the procedures that are in place in case of tie decisions, which allows the lower court decision to stand.

For those of you who think that if the Senate refuses to confirm a nominee that the public will rise up and vote in the democrats, you are dreaming. This has become an electorate of extremes as shown in the candidates that are running, and even by some of the posts of people on this thread. There really is a lot of anger out there and the candidates fan the fire.

I was thinking about jobs going abroad to gain better profits and cheaper goods, for the poor and the working class, while keeping many jobs left here at low wages. So, cheaper goods in exchange for low paying jobs. What a trade off. That is where new taxes ought to be placed. For every job a company brings to another country, they should pay a recurring tax. Apple, which employs a million workers in China and holds so much cash, it can pay a tax without it being an undue burden. Nafta, which I believe was formed under Bill Clinton hasn't worked so well for the lower and middle classes. Both parties are responsible. I digressed, I know.

Lets keep our eyes on this upcoming election. Its a beaut!

Annette

I agree, it will be a beaut and quite possibly one that the republicans will be shocked at. I have no belief that people entrenched in their beliefs will change to vote for Clinton or Sanders, what I do think is this; it will motivate democrats who may want Bernie to vote for Hillary because of it, and Democrats who are so disappointed in republicans to get up and vote.. I don't for one second a tea party member or a fundamental christian will change their vote.

Here's hoping a new beginning in the next election, it will be bruising! but fun.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

All good points Tekate. I spent a couple of months in Minnesota where a group of people who were helping care for me were discussiing the candidates up for election on the Republican side. The did say they were evangelicals, but were interested in Donald Trump. The funniest part was one person actually said, "I know its anti-American and anti Christian to like what he is saying about immigration but I like him." These were nice, lovely people. both young and older, but mostly younger.

It really surprised me. I don't think we can know what to expect.

Annette

 

[AGBF]

I read in the on-line version of, "The New York Times" that Republicans are lining up behind Mitch McConnell. I recommend that if the Republicans successfully block a vote on a nominee by President Obama now that we put Bernie Sanders in the White House in November. In fact, that may become my new slogan. "Not just a Democrat; elect a Socialist!"

I'm kidding, but I see Mitch McConnell as The Great Satan. I think a lot of other Americans are going to as well. There's only so much fascism we are willing to put up with.

And, yes, K, I do know what fascism is. I actually studied it once a long time ago. I even knew the words to "Faccetta Nera". I'm pulling out the "f" card.

AGBF

 

[Tekate]

Hi! Annette aka smitcompton.. good points you make and we truly don't know.. looking forward to a raucous time for all!

kate

Hi,

All good points Tekate. I spent a couple of months in Minnesota where a group of people who were helping care for me were discussiing the candidates up for election on the Republican side. The did say they were evangelicals, but were interested in Donald Trump. The funniest part was one person actually said, "I know its anti-American and anti Christian to like what he is saying about immigration but I like him." These were nice, lovely people. both young and older, but mostly younger.

It really surprised me. I don't think we can know what to expect.

Annette

 

[Dancing Fire]

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?

Why did Obama win both elections do you think?

b/c the Obama Admin cover up the truth about Benghazi. Had the admin told the truth from the start Prez Obama would not have been re-elected in 2012.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If I was Prez Obama I would nominate a judge who is more left center than far left, b/c if the Prez nominate a far left liberal he/she would have little or no chance of being approved by the GOP controlled Senate.

 

[MollyMalone]

I didn't say that was the constitutional obligation of the senate; just that I feel that's why it's important right now. Because on its face, when there are items for dispute before the bench, to have the "defendant" pick the likely deciding vote seems a conflict of interest.

I'm guessing that you intend "defendant" to refer to the President? But leaving aside the the possibility of a "recess appointment" of a temporary Justice, a nominee cannot be appointed to the Court without Senate approval. And a survey of the Court's caseload through the years shows that it's the Senate (as one of the 2 houses of Congress) whose actions are far more likely to be challenged via litigation that reaches the Supreme Court than a Presidential action. Yet I've never heard anyone suggest that the Senate's confirmation of a nominee should be seen as giving rise a conflict of interest.

Plus, our Constitution guarantees that Supreme Court Justices enjoy lifetime tenure (they can be removed via a Congressional impeachment proceeding, but that's never happened). So holding on to their Supreme Court position is not dependent on pleasing a President and Senate majority on down the line. More than one Justice has demonstrated their judicial independence by writing or signing on to majority opinions that were not what their appointing President would have endorsed

 

[kenny]

His peers reminisce about Scalia.
Interesting read.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/statements-from-supreme-court-justices/#more-238328

 

[AGBF]

The excerpt below is from, "The New York Times" to which I have provided a link. It appears on the Op-Ed page and was written by Timothy S. Huebner, the Sternberg Professor of History and Chair of the Department of History Rhodes College.

We all know that Senator McConnell has been calling for the Senate to block President Obama from nominating anyone to The Supreme Court, claiming that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. Professor Huebner strongly believes that President Obama has the historical and constitutional precedent to do the appointing. He writes:

"Article II of the Constitution directs the president to nominate and, 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,' appoint judges of the Supreme Court. ('He shall,' it says.) Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that this power does not apply in an election year.
In fact, history supports Mr. Obama. On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. This does not include the most recent and frequently cited example, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in November 1987 to fill a vacancy and won confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate in February 1988.

In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court included two justices, Benjamin Cardozo (standing, far left) and Louis Brandeis (seated, second from right) who filled vacancies that occurred during a presidential election year.

...​

In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement.
In the first of these instances, in January 1804, Justice Alfred Moore resigned from the court, and President Thomas Jefferson, who was running for a second term, successfully nominated a successor. In January 1892, the death of Justice Joseph Bradley prompted President Benjamin Harrison to nominate George Shiras Jr. to take his place. Although Mr. Harrison was locked in a race for re-election against Grover Cleveland, the Senate confirmed Mr. Shiras at the end of July. Mr. Harrison lost, but Justice Shiras remained on the court for the next decade.

In January 1916, as President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election, the death of Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar created one vacancy on the court, and that summer the resignation of Justice Charles Evans Hughes created another. Mr. Wilson filled both seats: the January opening with Louis D. Brandeis, and the July vacancy with John H. Clarke. Mr. Wilson won a second term.

In January 1932, when few expected Herbert Hoover to win a second term, Justice Oliver W. Holmes retired from the court. Rather than wait until after the election, President Hoover nominated and the Senate confirmed Benjamin N. Cardozo, a great justice. Even the Great Depression did not prevent the president and the Senate from fulfilling their constitutional duties.

In March 1888, when Chief Justice Morrison Waite died suddenly and unexpectedly — not unlike Justice Scalia — just as President Grover Cleveland was running for a second term, the president nominated a new chief justice, Melville W. Fuller, to replace him. The Senate confirmed the nomination at the end of July.

Of course, none of these represents an exact parallel to today’s situation. In all but one of these instances, the president and Senate majority were of the same political party, unlike today. Only Mr. Cleveland (a Democrat) faced a Senate controlled by the opposition party, while President Hoover’s Republican Party held only a one-vote majority in the Senate. Still, in both of these instances, the nominees were confirmed by wide margins. In fact, the 1932 confirmation of Justice Cardozo was unanimous.

Three times presidents who were on their way out of office — “lame ducks” in the truest sense — appointed justices to the court. In December 1800, the resignation of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth allowed John Adams, who had already lost to Thomas Jefferson, the chance to select the justice’s successor. Mr. Adams chose John Marshall, who went on to serve 34 years as the nation’s fourth and greatest chief justice. In February 1845, a month before he left office, John Tyler nominated Samuel Nelson, who won Senate confirmation and served for the next 27 years.

And when the resignation of Justice William Strong occurred after the 1880 election, the departing president, Rutherford B. Hayes — not his successor, James A. Garfield — nominated Justice Strong’s successor, Justice William B. Woods.
In the Adams and Tyler examples, two unpopular departing executives carried out their constitutional duties and overcame political factionalism from inside and outside of their own parties.

To be sure, the Senate has rejected nominees for political reasons, increased the size of the court (for instance, during the Civil War) or reduced it (immediately after the Civil War). But in cases when vacancies have arisen during election years, the weight of history is clearly on the side of the president naming a successor and the Senate acting on that nomination.

The Republicans, who frequently cite the Constitution and look to historical precedent, have an opportunity to be true to their principles. They should ignore Donald Trump’s urging to “delay, delay, delay,” and help ensure our Constitution functions as it should — and as it has in the past."

Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0

 

[ksinger]

The excerpt below is from, "The New York Times" to which I have provided a link. It appears on the Op-Ed page and was written by Timothy S. Huebner, the Sternberg Professor of History and Chair of the Department of History Rhodes College.

We all know that Senator McConnell has been calling for the Senate to block President Obama from nominating anyone to The Supreme Court, claiming that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. Professor Huebner strongly believes that President Obama has the historical and constitutional precedent to do the appointing. He writes:


Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0

Good post. I've read similar, and they all point this out. But they ARE written by elitist types from the always-suspect liberal bastions of academia, and are therefore easy to dismiss. If motivated reasoning can allow a person to reject most science (evolution, global warming, vaccination), historical lessons - while desperately needed it's true - will not stand a chance of making a dint. Because...Obama, trumps everything.

 

[missy]

Another interesting article.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0216-goldberg-scalia-obstruction-20160216-column.html

"Obama wants to reduce 'meanness'? Justice Scalia's death gives him that chance.

In Springfield, Ill., last week, President Obama commemorated the ninth anniversary of his bid for the White House. He admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”

To conservative ears, Obama's comments fell somewhere between risible and infuriating. Obama has always done his best to demonize and marginalize his opponents. Either the president honestly cannot see that or he's cynically pretending that the fault lies entirely with his critics. If only there were some way to figure out whether he's sincere.


Well, let no one say the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward second chances.

Partisans on all sides are sharpening their spears and honing their machetes for what could easily be the meanest and most-polarizing nomination battle in modern American history. -
Just a few days after Obama's remarks, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Scalia was not only one of the more gifted writers and intellectuals to ever don the robe, he was also a founding father of the originalist counterrevolution and the elder statesman of the court's conservative wing.


So it is no wonder that conservatives should grow instantly queasy at the thought that Obama will replace him with yet another high priest of the cult of the “living Constitution.”

Already, partisans are sharpening their spears for what could easily be the meanest and most-polarizing nomination battle in modern American history. It will get ugly, very ugly. Congress will grind to a halt. Interest groups will pour millions into the effort on both sides. Careers will be ruined. Public trust will plunge even deeper, if that's even possible.

Some commentators have already moved to DEFCON 1. Within 48 hours of the news that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would block any nominee Obama sent his way, New York Times editorial writer Brent Staples opined on Twitter, “In a nation built on slavery, white men propose denying the first black president his Constitutional right to name Supreme Court nominee.” Never mind that this would be Obama's third such appointment; Staples' tweet is but a drop in the river of poison to come.

Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Sen. Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the court for the time being.

Such diplomacy would go a long way to reduce — or at least prevent — further polarization and meanness in our politics.

Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he'll pick a liberal whom he'll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote.

And I don't blame him. If I were president, I would seize the opportunity to appoint a like-minded justice. So would pretty much any Republican or any other Democratic president. On the other hand, I don't fetishize bipartisanship and unity the way Obama does — if only rhetorically.

Republicans arguably erred when they implied that Obama shouldn't name a replacement for Scalia. The president has every right to do so. And the Senate has every right to withhold its consent. It's really as simple as that.

On the Democratic side, some are claiming that the GOP would be violating a sacred and inviolable norm by preventing another Obama appointee. That's ridiculous on its face. Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork's last name into a verb back in 1987.

As my National Review colleague Jim Geraghty has pointed out, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) gave a blistering speech in 2007 vowing to do everything he could to prevent President George W. Bush from appointing any more conservatives to the bench. Schumer said John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were quite enough for one president. Switch the names in that speech from Roberts, Alito and Bush to Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Obama and you have McConnell's position now.

Any claim that Republicans are the first to break the peace is as absurd as the suggestion that Obama is blameless for the polarization and meanness in our
politics."

[email protected]

 

[partgypsy]

Another interesting article.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0216-goldberg-scalia-obstruction-20160216-column.html

"Obama wants to reduce 'meanness'? Justice Scalia's death gives him that chance.

In Springfield, Ill., last week, President Obama commemorated the ninth anniversary of his bid for the White House. He admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”

To conservative ears, Obama's comments fell somewhere between risible and infuriating. Obama has always done his best to demonize and marginalize his opponents. Either the president honestly cannot see that or he's cynically pretending that the fault lies entirely with his critics. If only there were some way to figure out whether he's sincere.


Well, let no one say the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward second chances.

Partisans on all sides are sharpening their spears and honing their machetes for what could easily be the meanest and most-polarizing nomination battle in modern American history. -
Just a few days after Obama's remarks, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Scalia was not only one of the more gifted writers and intellectuals to ever don the robe, he was also a founding father of the originalist counterrevolution and the elder statesman of the court's conservative wing.


So it is no wonder that conservatives should grow instantly queasy at the thought that Obama will replace him with yet another high priest of the cult of the “living Constitution.”

Already, partisans are sharpening their spears for what could easily be the meanest and most-polarizing nomination battle in modern American history. It will get ugly, very ugly. Congress will grind to a halt. Interest groups will pour millions into the effort on both sides. Careers will be ruined. Public trust will plunge even deeper, if that's even possible.

Some commentators have already moved to DEFCON 1. Within 48 hours of the news that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would block any nominee Obama sent his way, New York Times editorial writer Brent Staples opined on Twitter, “In a nation built on slavery, white men propose denying the first black president his Constitutional right to name Supreme Court nominee.” Never mind that this would be Obama's third such appointment; Staples' tweet is but a drop in the river of poison to come.

Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Sen. Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the court for the time being.

Such diplomacy would go a long way to reduce — or at least prevent — further polarization and meanness in our politics.

Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he'll pick a liberal whom he'll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote.

And I don't blame him. If I were president, I would seize the opportunity to appoint a like-minded justice. So would pretty much any Republican or any other Democratic president. On the other hand, I don't fetishize bipartisanship and unity the way Obama does — if only rhetorically.

Republicans arguably erred when they implied that Obama shouldn't name a replacement for Scalia. The president has every right to do so. And the Senate has every right to withhold its consent. It's really as simple as that.

On the Democratic side, some are claiming that the GOP would be violating a sacred and inviolable norm by preventing another Obama appointee. That's ridiculous on its face. Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork's last name into a verb back in 1987.

As my National Review colleague Jim Geraghty has pointed out, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) gave a blistering speech in 2007 vowing to do everything he could to prevent President George W. Bush from appointing any more conservatives to the bench. Schumer said John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were quite enough for one president. Switch the names in that speech from Roberts, Alito and Bush to Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Obama and you have McConnell's position now.

Any claim that Republicans are the first to break the peace is as absurd as the suggestion that Obama is blameless for the polarization and meanness in our
politics."

[email protected]

"Interesting" is one way to describe this article. I do not believe that Obama is responsible for the meanness and polarization of the political landscape. In fact the "meanness" started BEFORE he was elected, including attacks he was not an American citizen and a Muslim (among other things). Even little things such as the strange phrasing "anniversary of his bid for the presidency" as if insinuating his presidency was invalid? Why not just say, 8th anniversary of him holding of the office of President of the United States?"

Soon after his election the GOP said their primary political objective was to make him a one term president, and have had nothing substantive to add to the level of political discourse since then. Reason, concilliation, has not worked. Why would it work now, and given that he is in his last year why should he care to please the unpleasable?

Obama should nominate who ever he darn well pleases, even a raging flaming liberal, and the Senate should approve that nomination so long as they are judged to be qualified to hold the job.

 

[missy]

part gypsy, if you read the article more carefully you will see Obama "admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”. So just calling him on this statement. Did he mean it? No one stated he was the cause of the meanness though I do agree with the author in that he didn't help the situation.

The author also goes on to state when discussing the next nomination for the Supreme Court Justice "And I don't blame him. If I were president, I would seize the opportunity to appoint a like-minded justice. So would pretty much any Republican or any other Democratic president. On the other hand, I don't fetishize bipartisanship and unity the way Obama does — if only rhetorically."

Maybe if we were more open minded and less angry (as a country) we could all get more things accomplished together.

And let me add in response to what you wrote

"Obama should nominate who ever he darn well pleases, even a raging flaming liberal, and the Senate should approve that nomination so long as they are judged to be qualified to hold the job."

Sure he can nominate whomever he wants to but he probably won't get them through. If he was smart he would take into careful consideration the best candidates that would please the majority of people because then he/she could get elected. The President doesn't get to make the decision unilaterally like it or not. What you wrote sounds like what a bitter child would write but then our government officials are not behaving much better IMO.

 

[partgypsy]

part gypsy, if you read the article more carefully you will see Obama "admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”. So just calling him on this statement. Did he mean it? No one stated he was the cause of the meanness though I do agree with the author in that he didn't help the situation.

The author also goes on to state when discussing the next nomination for the Supreme Court Justice "And I don't blame him. If I were president, I would seize the opportunity to appoint a like-minded justice. So would pretty much any Republican or any other Democratic president. On the other hand, I don't fetishize bipartisanship and unity the way Obama does — if only rhetorically."

Maybe if we were more open minded and less angry (as a country) we could all get more things accomplished together.

And let me add in response to what you wrote

"Obama should nominate who ever he darn well pleases, even a raging flaming liberal, and the Senate should approve that nomination so long as they are judged to be qualified to hold the job."

Sure he can nominate whomever he wants to but he probably won't get them through. If he was smart he would take into careful consideration the best candidates that would please the majority of people because then he/she could get elected. The President doesn't get to make the decision unilaterally like it or not. What you wrote sounds like what a bitter child would write but then our government officials are not behaving much better IMO.

Logically looking at the fact he is in his last year of presidency, and other efforts of conciliation have failed, I fail to see why Obama would have any motivation to choose someone who would please the GOP, over his own party and the majority of Americans. There is no logical argument, other than Goldberg's wishful thinking and the threat that the GOP will hold the process hostage. To me that is not a compelling enough reason. You cannot reason with the unreasonable. For the last 8 years Obama has been Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's (GOP's) football. I hope the GOP proves me wrong and when Obama nominates a qualified candidate they approve the nomination.

 

[missy]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. On both "sides".
And I absolutely agree. You cannot reason with the unreasonable. There has been a lot of unreasonableness on both sides of the line IMO.
I also hope Obama chooses wisely and picks a good candidate and that the GOP pushes him/her through. That would be a win win for everyone.

 

[partgypsy]

I do agree there are potential nominees that would be considered more or less appealing to the majority of people. And like Scalia once said, it's important for him to pick a "smart one". I would rather a justice be picked who is considered smart and incisive and knowledgeable about the law, than one who is picked for ideological reasons.