SCOTUS Appointment

[GMDino]

(02-14-2016, 12:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's more of a practical suggestion, though. They're not going to confirm any. 

I saw a suggestion earlier that maybe Obama should nominate someone from a cabinet level that has already been through the process and how that might make it easier to get someone confirmed.

Now, admittedly it was Rachel Maddow making the suggestion but her line of thinking seems rational.

Quote:Reacting to the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, aged 79, MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow said people making predictions of how President Obama will handle the vacancy will be "embarrassed." 


"This is kind of as big a jolt as we can get," Maddow said about Scalia's death and the vacancy left behind. "I think anybody who's going to predict exactly what's going to happen here is going to be embarrassed by those predictions just within the next few weeks."

Maddow came up with an interesting scenario where President Obama would nominate someone who "effectively has already been vetted," such as a cabinet level official. Maddow suggested the "very reserved and non-ideological" Secretary of Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson.

"If I had to throw one scenario into the mix, this might be the kind of time when the president would choose a nominee who effectively has already been vetted, somebody who can kind of jump the line in terms of the United States Senate, somebody who has recently been through a rigorous confirmation process, somebody who, for example, is a cabinet level official in the Obama administration already," Maddow proposed.

"The first person who springs to mind for that kind of a scenario is Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who is a very reserved and non-ideological person but has served in several administrations as a top Pentagon lawyer, as a very trusted national security expert and legal mind and is now running the biggest agency in the government outside of the Pentagon or the Veterans Affairs department," Maddow suggested.

"Somebody like that could conceivably be so non-objectionable to the United States Senate that maybe they would allow that sort of confirmation process to go ahead, even when another judicial nominee, who might more typically be on the short list would get held up by this Republican Senate trying to hold out for the hope of a Republican president to pick a nominee," Maddow also said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/13/maddow_jeh_johnson_possible_replacement_for_scalia_could_get_through_gop_senate.html

But as she said anyone making predictions now is just going to look foolish in the end.

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2016, 12:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just saw when Rafael mentioned this during the debate tonight and the moderator corrected it.  In 1988 Kennedy got confirmed...but the nomination was in 1987.

Yea, but it was after the election was over.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2016, 12:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, but it was after the election was over.

Okay.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-13-2016, 11:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.  He was referring to those who agreed with Mitch that Obama shouldn't even appoint one but rather wait until after the election so the next President can do it.

Far cry from "not allowed".

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-13-2016, 11:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree. The fact that they can operate free of the influence of the public and other branches allows this branch to actually work.

I dont trust politicians. I dont see how a person handed a lifetime gig who has to answer to no one can just stay on course with all the corrupt backroom deals that go down in Washington. 

Science will only keep advancing. Life expectancy could/should get better. What happens when stem cells ,surgery, and lab grown organs make these people with lifetime appointments live well past their expiration date? What if the ones with lifetime appointments are the ones making rulings that directly effect that sort of scenario?


May sound like sci fi but...


I dont see how term limits can in any way be a bad thing.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2016, 01:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I dont trust politicians. I dont see how a person handed a lifetime gig who has to answer to no one can just stay on course with all the corrupt backroom deals that go down in Washington. 

Science will only keep advancing. Life expectancy could/should get better. What happens when stem cells ,surgery, and lab grown organs make these people with lifetime appointments live well past their expiration date? What if the ones with lifetime appointments are the ones making rulings that directly effect that sort of scenario?


May sound like sci fi but...


I dont see how term limits can in any way be a bad thing.

So say something in the middle like a 20 year term with a clause that they cannot work with or in government after that?

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-14-2016, 12:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, but it was after the election was over.

But Robert Bork and Doug Ginsberg were nominated previous to Kennedy - before the election but in Reagan's last year I believe. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2016, 02:13 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: But Robert Bork and Doug Ginsberg were nominated previous to Kennedy - before the election but in Reagan's last year I believe. 

I was incorrect. I should have said "before the election cycle". They were all nominated before the primary truly began and Kennedy was only so late in the year because of all of the hold up with Bork and Ginsberg. I don't think anyone considers July the year before an election as being during the election year.

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-14-2016, 02:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was incorrect. I should have said "before the election cycle". They were all nominated before the primary truly began and Kennedy was only so late in the year because of all of the hold up with Bork and Ginsberg. I don't think anyone considers July the year before an election as being during the election year.

Not really trying to split hairs with this. Bottom line for me is that President Obama has around 340 days left, which is more than plenty of time for the process. And he would actually be derelict in his duty if he failed to nominate a proper candidate imho.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2016, 06:49 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Not really trying to split hairs with this. Bottom line for me is that President Obama has around 340 days left, which is more than plenty of time for the process. And he would actually be derelict in his duty if he failed to nominate a proper candidate imho.

Saw this this morning on Facebook but didn't have time to share it:

Quote:Robert Reich
6 hrs · [url=https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts#][/url]

My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)

Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate.

Since he became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t tipped his hand. But I discovered one morsel of information that might interest you: In 2000, he worked on Al Gore’s legal team in the infamous Supreme Court case of “Bush v. Gore.”

My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee with get a majority of Senate votes. What do you think?

I plead ignorance on who is "deserving" to be nominated or who would pass the nomination process.  Just throwing this out for discussion.

[fredtoast]

Saw an interview with Rubio where he said the senate should reject anyone that Obama nominated. When asked about a Circuit Court of Appeals judge that the Senate confirmed by 97-3 vote (including a vote from Rubio himself) and he still said he should be rejectsd. when asked why a guy he voted foer and was approved 97-3 by the senate could not be approved for the Supreme Court Rubio said "The level of scrutiny would be greater"

Capitol Hill is becoming a joke, and that covers BOTH parties.

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2016, 06:49 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Not really trying to split hairs with this. Bottom line for me is that President Obama has around 340 days left, which is more than plenty of time for the process. And he would actually be derelict in his duty if he failed to nominate a proper candidate imho.

(02-14-2016, 08:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Saw this this morning on Facebook but didn't have time to share it:


I plead ignorance on who is "deserving" to be nominated or who would pass the nomination process.  Just throwing this out for discussion.

Yea, he should nominate someone. This guy seems like a reasonable suggestion. It can't be someone they can accuse of being ultra liberal (lol, I've seen Elizabeth Warren suggestions) 

[*bfine32*]

I must say I disagree with the GOP saying, don't nominate or we won't approve. The process calls for the President to do just that and the Senate to approve a reasonable candidate. I'm sure when the GOP wins the White House next year they will get a chance to replace Ginsberg, who is currently 83.

[Benton]

(02-13-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: .

Ideally SCJs would step down when the political climate was conducive to electing a similar-minded replacement, but this SCJ may have been trying to hold on until a change in POTUS.

.

agreed

[Bengalzona]

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3377/republicans-are-handling-supreme-court-vacancy-all-ben-shapiro#pq=H01pPj

[GMDino]

(02-15-2016, 04:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/3377/republicans-are-handling-supreme-court-vacancy-all-ben-shapiro#pq=H01pPj

Nothing new there.  Conservatives want a conservative to nominate a conservative.

I did get a kick out of him saying "leftists" in the media are invoking racism...and then citing a tweet that doesn't mention race at all.



Geniuses indeed.

[GMDino]

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

Quote:WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of *****, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

[Belsnickel]

The problem I always have with people complaining about 'legislating from the bench' is that it is really bullshit. Call it what it is, you don't agree with their interpretation. Every decision, and dissent, I have ever read makes a very good argument for their position on the issue. They are making their decision based upon their interpretation of the Constitution as it stands. It is not making law, and it certainly does not take the power from the people. If the people truly like a law that has been shot down due to constitutionality then work on an amendment. That is how the process is intended to work. To say the SCOTUS is not answerable to anyone or that they have the final say is ignorant and more indicative of a lack of faith in the processes and our elected officials.

[Rotobeast]

(02-15-2016, 05:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem I always have with people complaining about 'legislating from the bench' is that it is really bullshit. Call it what it is, you don't agree with their interpretation. Every decision, and dissent, I have ever read makes a very good argument for their position on the issue. They are making their decision based upon their interpretation of the Constitution as it stands. It is not making law, and it certainly does not take the power from the people. If the people truly like a law that has been shot down due to constitutionality then work on an amendment. That is how the process is intended to work. To say the SCOTUS is not answerable to anyone or that they have the final say is ignorant and more indicative of a lack of faith in the processes and our elected officials.

It is our system.
What else do people think we need to do ?
Do they think they need to get with Bundy and have armed occupation of the SC ?