Antonin Scalia has died at 79

Tiltsta said:
Let us try to avoid a brown squall over this. We all know Scalia was a conservative voice on the court. I get that some people were very opposed to his interpretation of the law, and this is fine, just as it is fine that others may have agreed with Scalia. None of this impacts one's ability to post on a guitar forum productively. People have already begun to post things indicating their own feelings about his passing and politics, and I'm OK with that, but let us try to not turn this into a giant shit storm where people start personally bagging on one another over this.

And, yes, this is going to make for an interesting year and election cycle. I would guess Obama will get the chance to get a nominee through before he steps down, making his last year about as far from a historically lame duck presidency as is possible.
Click to expand...

i agree with all of the above. i was beginning to regret posting the thread at all.

on the subject of the (presumably) upcoming nomination, with things as they are in DC, getting a confirmation could be.....um......difficult.
 
It's definitely going to make an already surreal election year even more so.

Just waxing logistically rather than politically, I'm not so sure that stonewalling a nominee would be a smart play. Doing so could be very counterproductive come November. At the same time, putting up a moderate, vanilla potential nominee for confirmation theoretically make for a relatively easy process. I don't think either party wants to go to battle on another front so close to the election. You may actually see a very "hands off" process take place. Too much riding on November for either side to alienate the fence sitters.
 
OGG said:
It's definitely going to make an already surreal election year even more so.

Just waxing logistically rather than politically, I'm not so sure that stonewalling a nominee would be a smart play. Doing so could be very counterproductive come November. At the same time, putting up a moderate, vanilla potential nominee for confirmation theoretically make for a relatively easy process. I don't think either party wants to go to battle on another front so close to the election. You may actually see a very "hands off" process take place. Too much riding on November for either side to alienate the fence sitters.
Click to expand...

that's a real possiblity too. i can certainly see a few senators talking about a no vote (no matter who the nominee is) just so they can make a deal with the administration for a yes vote.
 
i would also think that how the primaries turn out might determine who obama would nominate, with respect to whom might inherit the nominee.
 
Tiltsta said:
And, yes, this is going to make for an interesting year and election cycle. I would guess Obama will get the chance to get a nominee through before he steps down, making his last year about as far from a historically lame duck presidency as is possible.
Click to expand...

This statement has already gone challenged by some. I do not believe it is a political statement for me to say that I sincerely hope that those who have been elected, and sworn to uphold the law of the land, do their f-ing jobs. It would be a bad precedent otherwise, for either side of the political spectrum.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
This statement has already gone challenged by some. I do not believe it is a political statement for me to say that I sincerely hope that those who have been elected, and sworn to uphold the law of the land, do their f-ing jobs. It would be a bad precedent otherwise, for either side of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
It is a simple statement of fact to say that it would be unprecedented to go without a fully staffed Court for just shy of a year.
 
Chicken Man said:
It is a simple statement of fact to say that it would be unprecedented to go without a fully staffed Court for just shy of a year.
Click to expand...

that IS true. but not impossible. it all ends up being up to the senate.
there ARE a few SERIOUS cases that will be taken up by the court in the next 6 months or so.
having a court that's evenly split and with no tie breaking vote could be interesting, and not necessarily in a good way.
 
mongooz said:
having a court that's evenly split and with no tie breaking vote could be interesting, and not necessarily in a good way.
Click to expand...
I was very curious, and haven't found anything (tho I could probably just ask my wife) what happens when there's a split vote. Do you just bring that case in again later?
 
I think, but would have to research to be sure, that if the court is completely split, the President gets the final vote. I have to check that. That could be interesting if so.

EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong on that. See below.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I think, but would have to research to be sure, that if the court is completely split, the President gets the final vote. I have to check that. That could be interesting if so.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm wrong.

"If the Court divides 4-4 the lower court opinion is affirmed without creating any Supreme Court precedent," said Jeffrey Fisher, a professor of law at Stanford University.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I think, but would have to research to be sure, that if the court is completely split, the President gets the final vote. I have to check that. That could be interesting if so.
Click to expand...

if that's true (and i don't know) that could be very interesting. it could be in some people's best interest in KEEPING the court to 8 justices.
i have no idea what the protocols are for an extended even court. if there are any protocols that would kick in and force a 9th to be placed on the bench.


edit: never mind
 
mongooz said:
if that's true (and i don't know) that could be very interesting. it could be in some people's best interest in KEEPING the court to 8 justices.
i have no idea what the protocols are for an extended even court. if there are any protocols that would kick in and force a 9th to be placed on the bench.


edit: never mind
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry.
 
And it seems the lines have already been drawn over who should appoint the next justice, the current president or the next president. Go figure that it seems to fall along party lines.
 
Tiltsta said:
And it seems the lines have already been drawn over who should appoint the next justice, the current president or the next president. Go figure that it seems to fall along party lines.
Click to expand...

ya mean you actually thought it would be otherwise? :grin:

as i said earlier, the nomination may be put off until after the primaries are over. then the two sides would be decided, which might effect who might be nominated.
 
I think it would be hilarious for the GOP to stall for the nomination to kick it to the next president, only to see Bernie Sanders take the election and put someone HE thinks is super liberal on the court. Talk about a plan back firing. Supremepwnd.
 
Tiltsta said:
I think it would be hilarious for the GOP to stall for the nomination to kick it to the next president, only to see Bernie Sanders take the election and put someone HE thinks is super liberal on the court. Talk about a plan back firing. Supremepwnd.
Click to expand...

that would almost be funny, except for the delaying justice part.
but again, the senate has the last word on confirmation, so if bernie won and nominated a far left judge, the senate would likely (in the make up it is now) steadfastly stonewall.
 
Tiltsta said:
I think it would be hilarious for the GOP to stall for the nomination to kick it to the next president, only to see Bernie Sanders take the election and put someone HE thinks is super liberal on the court. Talk about a plan back firing. Supremepwnd.
Click to expand...
There's already a petition on the white house petition thing for Obama to appoint HIMSELF to the supreme court, and Hillary was also extremely receptive to the idea of a Justice Obama. If that happened in a fictional universe, it would be hilarious and ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top