|
Post by Doug on Feb 13, 2016 17:48:57 GMT -5
Before McConnell has a chance to bring it up for a vote it has to get past the Senate Committee on the Judiciary with Cruz, Sessions and Flake not happening.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 13, 2016 17:49:41 GMT -5
Okay, I guess I follow that. I’m not so sure there’s any appeasing those guys, but I see your point.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 13, 2016 17:53:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 13, 2016 17:58:05 GMT -5
IMO, the only part of that that holds any water is the 7-2 split. I get tired of all the 5-4 splits along ideological lines that make it so very glaringly obvious that our Supreme Court is just another partisan political arm of the machine. I like a 7-2 split. Even if I don’t agree with their decision, it makes me feel like they know something I don’t.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 13, 2016 18:06:46 GMT -5
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/13/pete_williams_id_be_very_surprised_if_senate_even_considers_supreme_court_nomination_in_election_year.htmlPETE WILLIAMS, NBC'S CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: The president will have to pick a nominee, President Obama, and the question here is whether the Senate will even consider a nominee under these circumstances in the middle of an election year. Normally when Supreme Court Justices think about retiring, because of ill health or whatever considerations, they don't historically do it in an election year if they can all avoid it because they don't want the nomination of their replacement to be a political football. When something like this happens there is no choice but it is a very difficult time and it's certainly going to be something that the Senate is going to have to think about, whether they're going to leave the Supreme Court with just eight Justices and wait until the presidential election to see if a Republican gets elected and will appoint the next nominee or go ahead and fill this vacancy. I would be very surprised, frankly, if a vacancy can be filled in time for the next term to start when it starts in October, but it's such an unexpected thing, such a sudden thing, it's such a shock, and that's the way these things tend to go.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 13, 2016 18:56:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 13, 2016 19:11:32 GMT -5
That's not a bad breakdown. I liked the quote "What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?"
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 13, 2016 19:21:37 GMT -5
McConnell has already announced that the Senate will not consider a replacement until after the election.
That didn’t take long.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 13, 2016 19:21:37 GMT -5
I deleted something that was a bit dim.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 13, 2016 19:22:48 GMT -5
I deleted something that was a bit dim. I only skimmed it. I was going to come back to it because I think I know the answer, but I wanted to make sure I understood the question. And now it’s gone...
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 13, 2016 19:34:26 GMT -5
I clumsily posed a question about the permanence of lower court adjudications in the subsequent event of a SC 4-4 decision. I am patient enough for the experts to chime in tomorrow though. There is a cool programme about obscure 'Northern Soul' music on telly. (IE soul music from smaller, mostly southern US record labels which enjoyed a substantial cult following in northern English discos in the '70s).
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 13, 2016 19:42:26 GMT -5
I've read that with only 8, unless it's 5-3 then the lower court's ruling will stand, and it's like the SC never heard the case. In some cases, the circuit courts are in agreement--when two or more have ruled the same way. But on some issues, such as abortion, a southern circuit court could rule one way (and probably will), while one in the north would go the other. And then, given that the SC would not have a majority, those regional rulings would stand.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 13, 2016 19:43:24 GMT -5
I clumsily posed a question about the permanence of lower court adjudications in the subsequent event of a SC 4-4 decision. I am patient enough for the experts to chime in tomorrow though. There is a cool programme about obscure 'Northern Soul' music on telly. (IE soul music from smaller, mostly southern US record labels which enjoyed a substantial cult following in northern English discos in the '70s). I just did a quick check but what I saw says that a 4-4 tie on an 8 person Supreme court leaves the lower court's opinion standing. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 13, 2016 19:53:11 GMT -5
That much I know Bruce. I was wondering if that was a more or less final thing that would be considered in just the same way as a SC majority ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 13, 2016 20:08:23 GMT -5
That much I know Bruce. I was wondering if that was a more or less final thing that would be considered in just the same way as a SC majority ruling. I don't think so I think it just leaves it where it was before the SC decided to hear it. If that's right most of those will come up again after a new justice is appointed.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 13, 2016 20:13:17 GMT -5
That's what I suspected. There could be quite a log-jam of cases down the road if that's the case. The lengthier wait whilst lower court decisions are the law could, nonetheless, be quite consequential in some instances.
Edit - for the time being, I just need time to grieve.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Feb 13, 2016 20:26:54 GMT -5
Sheessh! Just when you thought this election process couldn't get anymore twisted, along comes the twisted sister of fate. And guess who stands at the front gates of nominations but our dear friend Senor Cruz. Mr Oh No You Don't! It certainly throws a wrench of contention into the discussion.
So what's next? Russia does something alarming? The China/North Korea connection? Someone important get assasinated? As ole Yogie was wont to say... It ain't over till it's over...
Till then folks, the Chinese curse prevails...
As I said... Sheesh!!
PS: I think Paul S's comment hit the nail on the head.
Oh and just one more edit: RIP Justice Scalia. Saw his 60 minutes interview. I may not have agreed with his position, but he strikes me as a man who had his heart in the right place, for good or ill. Evidently he went in a fashion we could all envy. Went to sleep and never woke up.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 13, 2016 21:49:32 GMT -5
Goodbye, Citizens United.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 13, 2016 23:03:30 GMT -5
The strangest thing just happened to me. Let me start with pointing out what is probably very obvious: I never liked Scalia. Promoting a conservative agenda from the bench is not a good thing. (Neither is promoting a liberal agenda, but a conservative agenda is, of course, worse.) And Citizens United is the most screwed up decision to ever come out of the Supreme Court. Ever. Next, take a minute to look at these. They’re fun, if nothing else. ![](http://brainden.com/images/old-couple.jpg) ![](http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/6976/optical-illusions-that-prove-you-have-a-dirty-mind-2112567587-apr-7-2014-1-600x400.jpg) ![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dspWXUOQhN0/UbVviB4yGiI/AAAAAAAJocw/njukqne-a9k/s1600/animal+optical+illusion+pictures+(33).jpg) ![](http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Optical+illusions+ftw_1c9d04_5034963.jpg) You’ve seen them before. You look at them from a slightly different perspective, and they suddenly turn into something else entirely. That’s what happened to me while I was watching the tail end of a Piers Morgan/ Antonin Scalia interview. Morgan asked Scalia about a controversial dissenting opinion on a case with an 11 year old sexually abused girl. I’ll skip the details, but Scalia’s response made perfect sense to me. He was upholding the constitution. Period. It didn’t matter how it affected any particular case. His job is to uphold the constitution. Next came Citizens United. Piers quickly summed up the ridiculousness of the court’s decision, and how big money corrupts the democratic process. Scalia wasn’t all that talkative. His initial response was "the more speech, the better.” With a little prodding Scalia went on to add that newspapers endorse candidates all the time and nobody objects to that. Scalia believes the newspapers’ attempts to influence the outcome of elections is a good thing. It is free speech. And when Super PACS and others join in, it’s just more free speech. And the more free speech, the better. The last thing he added is that we should know who’s doing the talking. Something clicked. Up till now, I’ve been looking at it from the money side, and we all know that it’s inherently wrong that the wealthy and other monied interests have a disproportionate say in who gets elected. Nobody should be able to buy an election. But if you look at it from the speech angle, things start to look different. We get free speech from many different levels, from people speaking one-on-one to assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, to the media to political ads. Some of those things cost nothing, others are quite expensive. But they’re all forms of free speech. It felt like looking at the optical illusions above. I can still see what I used to see, but now I can see what the other guys were seeing. Note: the interview didn’t go into the whole “corporations are people” thing. I don’t know if optical illusions work for that.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Feb 14, 2016 5:04:55 GMT -5
I read on FB that he did it on purpose to further muck up the election.
|
|