Antonin Scalia R.I.P.

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60
T86, we're just going to disagree that leaving the SCOTUS with a vacancy for the next year constitutes effective governance.

That would depend on what your goals for the country are. Most of us believe Obama has done enough damage.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
T86, we're just going to disagree that leaving the SCOTUS with a vacancy for the next year constitutes effective governance.
My statement was a broad one, not directed at the replacement of the current vacancy. Nevertheless, the sun will come up tomorrow and the Supreme Court will still be able to issue opinions even if Scalia's position goes unfilled for a decade. There are plenty of examples of even-numbered Supreme Courts since the founding of the nation. In fact, the court began with 6 justices I believe.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Politics is always funny to me.

This morning, the very same left-wingers who would insist on 'letting the people decide because it's an election year' are pontificating about 'hyperpartisanship' being the only reason to deny Obama a nominee (we aren't to racism - well, yet anyway - being the reason). The right-wingers would be talking about how we couldn't function without one.

I hate to break it to anyone but SCOTUS had eight justices from June 26, 1987 to February 3, 1988; I don't recall one Democrat speaking up and saying that they should pass Bork for no other reason than the Court couldn't get its work done.

But back to my earlier point.

Folks are always threatening every manner of revenge on political enemies. It almost never happens. Furthermore, I'm laughing my ash off because of this: if the Left had simply played by the rules prior to 1987, Bork would have been on the Court, he would be dead now (2012) and instead of Kennedy it would ALREADY be 5-4 liberals and this would be a bonus pickup. (This presumes Bork would not have stepped down prior to Obama's election, of course).

But laws of unintended consequences are funny things. Democrats decided they were gonna show President GHW Bush who was boss and turned down John Tower for SECDEF. This gave them Dick Cheney - and wound up giving them Cheney as VP for eight years later because of that petulance. You have to be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure everyone here remembers impeachment. Right after Clinton survived (17 years ago this past week btw), Democrats were vowing to run against Republicans as 'the party of impeachment.' But it didn't happen. Why? Because what nobody ever mentions is that those voting to NOT REMOVE Clinton were in just as much (or little) danger as those who did. In most cases, votes were made by Congresscritters who don't have to worry about re-election. There was ONE story online about it back in the day about some Republican guy from California and ONE QUOTE from ONE VOTER saying he had voted against Rep So and So because of the impeachment thing. It was a classic case of a journalist determining the narrative and then going out and getting the quotes to support it.

Of course if Democrats are masters at blowing elections for Congress (Todd Akin notwithstanding), Republicans are likewise masters at blowing the Supreme Court nominations. This party got seven shots at trying to put five on the Court to overturn Roe v Wade and couldn't do it - and managed to put a guy on the Court who said Obamacare was okay!!!

But if Trump wins the nomination, you may as well have President Hillary when it comes to that.
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
Yeah, and while the President gets to pick the nominee the process is yet another one of those separation of powers the Founders included. If the Senate doesn't consent, then the President doesn't get his choice. Period. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can only withhold consent because the candidate isn't qualified. The Democrats know this well. Robert Bork was one of the most qualified men to ever receive a nomination, but the Dems knew that if he was on the court, it would shift it far to the right. And they were correct. Every time Kennedy has been the fifth vote? That would have gone the other way if Bork had been confirmed. The left will talk about a functioning political process and all that bunk, but let's call it what it is. They want another nominee, and we don't want to give it to them. Period.

So let the American people decide.
What Kennedy and Biden did to that man should be known by all. I found it hilarious this morning when some CNN tool said that Reagan got one appointed his last year in office. They failed to mention it was after the Dems raised HOLY HELL and not only blocked his 1st but also his 2nd choice before getting that MUSH Kennedy. Karma is a you what Dems and you are about to get Borked!!!

Mitch could win a LOT of points of favor back with the American people by holding fast. This one is serious and everyone is watching. He should wait until Barry's head is about to explode and Hillary is shrieking at a fever pitch then call a presser and tell them to go to hell.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
The Vox take on Ginsburg's statement:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10990156/scalia-ginsburg-friends

It's not just atypical in contemporary American politics for people to be both ideological adversaries and close personal friends. It's atypical for contemporary American political figures to even be close personal friends with each other. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg showed just how much everyone else was missing. That won't be as significant to Scalia's legacy as his jurisprudence, but maybe it should.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Yeah, and while the President gets to pick the nominee the process is yet another one of those separation of powers the Founders included. If the Senate doesn't consent, then the President doesn't get his choice. Period.
This is one of those times when the talking heads will whine about "bi-partisanship" and tell us, "The Republicans should just give Obama what he wants. That's what biartisanship means."
That is balderdash.
Obama should be searching his Rolodex right now for a guy he finds acceptable and will also be acceptable to a majority of Senators. That means someone on the right-hand side of the Democrat party or the left-hand side of the Republican party. Not a Bernie Sanders Democrat. If he nominates a hard-left Democrat, then he will not get anyone. And the news media will gripe and moan about the lack of bi-partisanship.

American media sucks. Period.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
The name that's floating about is Judge Sri Srinivasan.

Srinivasan was later a partner in the law offices of O'Melveny & Myers and, while George W. Bush was in office, assistant to the solicitor general. Notably, he served as deputy solicitor general for the Obama administration before receiving his nomination to the D.C. Circuit (for which the Senate then voted in his favor, 97-0) in 2012. His "experience on the other side of the aisle," according to CNN, makes him a likely choice for a contentious position.

And, as [Jeffrey] Toobin pointed out, he's made "twenty or so arguments in the Supreme Court," helping to take down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. While Obama's past two terms have taught us that a Republican Senate can and will block basically anything on the basis that the president proposed it, the thinking behind a Srinivasan nomination is that it would prove palatable enough to conservatives — who, remember, did unanimously confirm his D.C. Circuit nomination in 2013 — that they might accept it.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
With all the identity politics that goes into the selection criteria for a Justice on the Supreme Court, we have X number of women, we have X number of African-Americans, we have X number of Catholics, etc. so the interests of those groups can be represented on the bench.
Know what we don't have represented on the bench? White Protestant men.
None.

We also have no grads of law school in the SEC. Ivy Leagues galore, but no other group of schools.
Imagine the caterwauling if every single justice on the Supreme Court was a grad of an SEC law school. "These people are not like us! How can they represent the entire US? What do they know of the other regions of the country? This biased arrangement is unfair!"
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
With all the identity politics that goes into the selection criteria for a Justice on the Supreme Court, we have X number of women, we have X number of African-Americans, we have X number of Catholics, etc. so the interests of those groups can be represented on the bench.
Know what we don't have represented on the bench? White Protestant men.
None.
While it's true that the current court is largely Catholic with just a sprinkle of Judaism, the seven most recent justices prior to the current makeup -- Souter, O'Connor, Stevens, Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmum, Marshall -- were all Protestant/Episcopal. You know what we've never had? An Atheist on the court. Or a known LGBT member. Be careful what you wish for.

We also have no grads of law school in the SEC. Ivy Leagues galore, but no other group of schools.
Imagine the caterwauling if every single justice on the Supreme Court was a grad of an SEC law school. "These people are not like us! How can they represent the entire US? What do they know of the other regions of the country? This biased arrangement is unfair!"
Honest question: is lawyer regionalism a thing? In my field, one may be judged by the prestige of their school, but Ivies by no means own the category of highest prestige. And the location at which one's degree was earned is seen as less relevant in terms of regional medical concerns than where they trained and practiced after graduation. Is it different in law?
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
While it's true that the current court is largely Catholic with just a sprinkle of Judaism, the seven most recent justices prior to the current makeup -- Souter, O'Connor, Stevens, Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmum, Marshall -- were all Protestant/Episcopal. You know what we've never had? An Atheist on the court. Or a known LGBT member. Be careful what you wish for.
I have never espoused identity politics as Democrats practice it. I do not care whether I am represented by a black man or a Hispanic lesbian, I just care whether, as Jefferson pout the criteria: Is he/she capable, honest, and faithful to the Constitution? I was just pointing out the silliness of the proposition and calling its practitioners out on it.
Honest question: is lawyer regionalism a thing? In my field, one may be judged by the prestige of their school, but Ivies by no means own the category of highest prestige. And the location at which one's degree was earned is seen as less relevant in terms of regional medical concerns than where they trained and practiced after graduation. Is it different in law?
I'm not sure, but the Ivies are all in the northeast, and most have faculty whose views are, well, not exactly the same as the views of the people of Alabama, or Alaska, yet, the SCOTUS is composed completely of grads of the Ivies.
If you wanted to see how different the law was, or whether where Justices went to law mattered, just put 9 SEC (or for that matter, PAC-12, Big 12, Bog 10) law school grads and the bench and listen for the caterwauling. It would start in a nano-second.
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60
How Poetic! Obama’s disregard for Congress now has him begging the Senate

For seven years we have seen this president display a constant disregard for the process that is our three-branch system.
From discouraging the enforcement of immigration law via executive directives and Department of Justice lawsuits hamstringing Arizona, to executive orders that alter the intent of passed law, Obama has skirted Congress. He must find himself now, with the vacancy on the Supreme Court, in a peculiar position. He needs the cooperation of the Senate to fill the Scalia vacancy. Turnabout is fair play, and we hope the Senate senses just that.
The president has the honor to “recommend” candidates for the Supreme Court. Confirmation comes only with the approval of the Senate.
I suggest the Senate have a little fun with this hubristic president.
Perhaps, before we get started with this Supreme Court stuff, the Senate should ask for the release of those 32 pages of Fast and Furious that are inexplicably executive protected. Maybe a little more on the IRS would be welcome also. Perhaps the nature of the 18 emails that he exchanged with this secretary of State on her personal server would come to light. After all, the information so delivered and received between the president and Hillary has been declared “non-sensitive”.
No, Mr. President. The “do-nothing” Congress is about to do something very important. It will be called again “do-nothing” when it takes its sweet time on the confirmation process. However when it is pay back time, when it is time to return the disregard you have shown Congress, Senatorial gamesmanship will indeed be “doing something”, something long needed and hopefully delightful to witness. Turnabout is fair play, Mr. President.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
How Poetic! Obama’s disregard for Congress now has him begging the Senate

For seven years we have seen this president display a constant disregard for the process that is our three-branch system.
From discouraging the enforcement of immigration law via executive directives and Department of Justice lawsuits hamstringing Arizona, to executive orders that alter the intent of passed law, Obama has skirted Congress. He must find himself now, with the vacancy on the Supreme Court, in a peculiar position. He needs the cooperation of the Senate to fill the Scalia vacancy. Turnabout is fair play, and we hope the Senate senses just that.
The president has the honor to “recommend” candidates for the Supreme Court. Confirmation comes only with the approval of the Senate.
I suggest the Senate have a little fun with this hubristic president.
Perhaps, before we get started with this Supreme Court stuff, the Senate should ask for the release of those 32 pages of Fast and Furious that are inexplicably executive protected. Maybe a little more on the IRS would be welcome also. Perhaps the nature of the 18 emails that he exchanged with this secretary of State on her personal server would come to light. After all, the information so delivered and received between the president and Hillary has been declared “non-sensitive”.
No, Mr. President. The “do-nothing” Congress is about to do something very important. It will be called again “do-nothing” when it takes its sweet time on the confirmation process. However when it is pay back time, when it is time to return the disregard you have shown Congress, Senatorial gamesmanship will indeed be “doing something”, something long needed and hopefully delightful to witness. Turnabout is fair play, Mr. President.
Huh. Somehow he filled the last two vacancies.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.