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.
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.T86, we're just going to disagree that leaving the SCOTUS with a vacancy for the next year constitutes effective governance.
Congress sets the number of Justices on the SCOTUS - there's no number in the US Constitution - so in realty, the president gets what Congress allows.T86, we're just going to disagree that leaving the SCOTUS with a vacancy for the next year constitutes effective governance.
Congress sets the number of Justices on the SCOTUS - there's no number in the US Constitution - so in realty, the president gets what Congress allows.
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!!!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.
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.
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."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.
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.
Forgive me but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that.This is a cool read - I had no idea: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
You ain't the only one.Forgive me but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that.
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.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.
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?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!"
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.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'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.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?
Huh. Somehow he filled the last two vacancies.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.