+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead (/showthread.php?tid=188061)
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Bimwad - 02-13-2016
Interestingly, RBG and he were best buds outside of work.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - PeterB - 02-13-2016
Bimwad wrote:
Interestingly, RBG and he were best buds outside of work.
Yes I just heard the news and that too. Since you can often judge people by the quality of their friends, my opinion of Mr. Scalia has just risen considerably. And like Ombligo, I recognize his experience and service to our nation.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - MrNoBody - 02-13-2016
R.I.P. Justice Scalia and many thanks for your lifetime of service to our nation.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Grateful11 - 02-14-2016
vicrock wrote:
This brings up the whole nomination process - and the big problem - liberal President - conservative Senate - I predict total gridlock.
I've said for a while that justices should be nominated not on the basis of their leanings - conservative or liberal - but on the depth of their constitutional scholarship.
Absolutely right on both statements.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Black - 02-14-2016
PeterW wrote:
Umm no, Obama gets to NOMINATE a SCOTUS justice. The Senate will not even act on the nomination prior to next January.
Sawed on the internets so could be wrong: The longest the Senate has ever stalled on a nominee is 125 days, and Obama has 361 days left of his presidency.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - $tevie - 02-14-2016
You're not giving the Senate enough credit. I'm sure they can pull it off.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Fritz - 02-14-2016
Black wrote:
The longest the Senate has ever stalled on a nominee is 125 days, and Obama has 361 days left of his presidency.
this one will surely break that record.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - richorlin - 02-14-2016
Maybe Obama will do a recess appointment who can stay in until the end of this session of Congress. If the Dems retake the senate and keep the Presidency, the recess appointment justice can then be nominated and confirmed. Just sayin...
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Uncle Wig - 02-14-2016
He was a brilliant guy - an amazing legal mind. He cared passionately about the Constitution and took his work on the court very seriously. I did not like his decisions, but I respected him. That he and Justice Ginsberg could be good friends says a lot of good about both of them.
Re: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead - Ombligo - 02-14-2016
My former Law Professor, Tom Goldstein, is a leading SCOTUS observer and commentator. He posted the following on the SCOTUSblog a few hours ago (some good reading there BTW). He offers an interesting insight to what may transpire in the coming months.
By Tom Goldstein on Feb 13, 2016 at 5:42 pm
The first and most important reaction is to extend our sympathies to Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, and his entire family, including his nine children and numerous grandchildren. The Justice is a historic figure, surely one of the most influential legal minds – on and off the Court – of the last century. His contributions to the law are incalculable. They substantially reframed discussions of constitutional, statutory, and administrative law.
The most immediate implications involve the presidential election. President Obama of course has the power to nominate a successor, with the consent of the Senate. In the ordinary course, because the opening was unexpected, the nomination would not be forthcoming for a couple of months and then the confirmation process would take several more months.
Theoretically, that process could conclude before the November election. But realistically, it cannot absent essentially a consensus nominee – and probably not even then, given the stakes. A Democratic president would replace a leading conservative vote on a closely divided Court. The Republican Senate will not permit such a consequential nomination – which would radically shift the balance of ideological power on the Court – to go forward.
There is the related question of the Court becoming an issue in the election. Before today, it was unlikely that many voters would choose a presidential candidate for this reason, given the importance of issues like the economy, terrorism, and immigration. But the fact that there is an immediate vacancy – and a vacancy that could tip the Court’s ideological balance – makes the future of the Court much more concrete.
In the political primaries, the Court is not an issue that divides candidates of the same party. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, for example, are clear that they would want to appoint a more liberal successor that would oppose decisions like the Citizens United campaign finance ruling. The leading Republican candidates would all make clear their support for a nominee who would oppose the Court’s rulings upholding the Affordable Care Act.
In the general election, the Court is also an issue that tends to drive the base of each party, so it may be most relevant to turn-out rather than to changing voters’ minds. In general terms, conservatives have been more focused than progressives on the Court as a presidential legacy. But both parties have groups of voters – on the left, supporting abortion rights, and on the right, supporting gun rights and opposing abortion, for example – for which the Court has outsized importance.
Because there remains almost a year in his Term, President Obama is likely to feel an obligation to put forward a nominee rather than completely accede to Republican objections to confirming anyone. That may also be good presidential politics, as Democrats seek to paint Republicans as obstructionists. Three potential nominees are easy to identify from among current appellate judges: from the D.C. Circuit, Patricia Millett and Sri Srinivasan; and from the Ninth Circuit, Paul Watford.