Sunday, February 14, 2016

Replacing Antonin Scalia will be a profound test of the American political system - Vox

   Do elections have consequences ? If so, which one, 2012 or 2016.
    President Obama will nominate a replacement justice for Antonin Scalia and the Senate will not consider it.
     Increasingly the Supreme Court is a parallel legislature with members seen as being on either side of the aisle. So its understandable, given the life time term,  that the parties want to seek advantage.
Replacing Antonin Scalia will be a profound test of the American political system - Vox

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say the Senate won't consider an Obama nominee. It would depend on who that was. The last two the Liar in Chief sent us were deep believers in the idea that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says, and abortion is really cool up to the point of birth. Kagan and Sotomayor's main qualification was the fact that they had vaginas. They were also fine softball players. If Obama pukes up another nominee of this caliber, then you are right, the Senate will let it die.

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

Irrational posts = good, just what we need more of ... but boy do they miss the bigger picture, which is best summed up here in Sen. Leahy's words, which I totally agree with. I also can't figure out why others don't see it that way - and please don't say it's politics as usual - it is anything but...

Sen. Patrick Leahy is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and he said while in a statement mourning Justice Scalia called on Republicans to work with Democrats to replace him swiftly because failing to do so would weaken democracy for partisan reasons."

Then he added: "I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the president or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty. The American people deserve to have a fully functioning Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons. It is only February. The president and the Senate should get to work without delay to nominate, consider and confirm the next justice to serve on the Supreme Court."

Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen, is it? We shall see.

Serve the people as they profess and stop the craziness.




Rug Daniels. said...

Whoever obama sends up.
The Republicans need to Bork him. It took Reagan 3 tries to get
Anthony Kennedy. The pick is too important to let that community organizer choose him.

Anonymous said...

Danny, did you get that spiel from party line central?
The high Court only needs one judge to function. Nine of them is way more than is needed. Many cases are decided with less than 9, as the Harvard softball girl has to recuse herself often. Most of the decisions are made by lower courts. The ones that make it to the top are mostly ruled on wrong, with rare exceptions, such as the correct ruling in Citizens United.

If Obama wants to have nine on the Court, all he has to do is follow the Constitutions by seeking the advice of the Senate and following it, and then the Senate would quickly confirm.

Anonymous said...

What Dan is neglecting to tell us, as I'm sure it wasn't in his party issue talking points, is that no president has nominated a Supreme Court justice during an election year for 80 years. I'm guess he has been informed that the Liar in Chief will do things differently.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with lesbian softball players, but they should not constitute one third of the Supreme Court. If Obama gets his way, photos of the SC will show a group with backward baseball hats. Not indicative of the average citizen.

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

Put a sock in it 9:03 and others who also think along those lines

We will overlook your utter ignorance and raw stupidity by offering what I call facts, which I know you hate to see me cite, but here goes anyway.

This is from SCOTUS official page and just written in light of Justice Scalia's death and now vacancy and GOP BS statements like yours. Feel fre to take notes if you dare.

Supreme Court Vacancies in Presidential Election Years

Anonymous said...

In 2007, the Chuck (Schumer) proposed that no new appointees to the Supreme Court be considered by the Senate. That was 19 MONTHS before the end of Bush's term. Mr Francis conveniently forgets facts like this.

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

Let's be clear here 11:58 .... Chuck Schumer or any other Senator making suggestions is NOT law, is NOT change, does NOT implement a new process or rule ... hell they all blow hard from time-to-time and Mr. Schumer is one of the biggest blowhards in the Senate. So, on this point you raise, there is no there, there; so there. And, BTW: I seldom forget things ... mind as sharp as a tack...

Anonymous said...

4:36 Thank you Dans. So you never forget ehhh but you conveniently omit facts that exist.