Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.

That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.

The longest time between a justice dying or stepping down and a new one being appointed is roughly 120 days. Republicans will have to triple that to avoid another Obama appointee.

If Hillary or Sanders win, I expect the Senate will approve whichever nominee President Obama has in the pipeline simply because there would be no point in prolonging it. Should Cruz or Rubio win, then you will have your delay through Jan 22nd.

 Ouze wrote:

That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.

That was an epic dissent that everyone ought to read and tip their hat to Scalia.

Obama won't be able to fill it... as both sides will jump on it and use it for the Fall Election.

Or, Obama could troll everyone and nominate Ted Cruz.. (and thus, open the way for Trump to win the GOP nomination and lose to Clinton/Sanders).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-wont-be-able-to-replace-scalia-with-a-justice-as-liberal-as-sotomayor/

Good write-up.

If Obama is smart, he will go with a swing vote on the bench. And even a right-leaning swing vote would be better than what we had.

Or nominate Cruz to shake up the GOP presidential candidate side.

It would effectively delegitamize as Clinton/Sanders could argue in the General that "you're only here because Obama cleared the deck for you".

EDIT: neva gunna happen, I just saw Deadpool so I'm infected with some of Wade's snarkiness. But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.

Thankfully the majority of the people care just a little bit more about stuff other than the next election and are able to see further than that.

 djones520 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.

And yet, ironically, if Cruz did have his way, the judges he would want are also the kind of judges that would rule him as ineligible to be President.

Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.

That's kind of the whole point of the argument Tribe is making: if you believe in a living constitution, then Cruz is a natural born citizen. If you follow the originalist philosophy, then he isn't, which the article is using to make the point that Cruz is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution he wants to hold sacred and which parts he doesn't care about in regards to his legal philosophy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.

And yet, ironically, if Cruz did have his way, the judges he would want are also the kind of judges that would rule him as ineligible to be President.

Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.

That's kind of the whole point of the argument Tribe is making: if you believe in a living constitution, then Cruz is a natural born citizen. If you follow the originalist philosophy, then he isn't, which the article is using to make the point that Cruz is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution he wants to hold sacred and which parts he doesn't care about in regards to his legal philosophy.

If that were true, then the earler Presidents wouldn't been legal? (Washington, et el).

That was already accounted for within the eligibility requirements, as it stated either natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

By the way, in case I didn't make it abundantly clear when this issue first cropped up, I believe Cruz is eligible.

I know someone who disagrees with you.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I feel like doing so would just further polarize the country.

You are correct, but that doesn't mean there is no hay hay to be made.

 whembly wrote:
But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.

Why would Cruz accept the nomination? If I were in his position, I certainly wouldn't.

So if Clinton/similar Democrat won the election could they then appoint Obama to the Supreme Court ?


That'd be entertaining to watch

Obama has a background in law, doesn't he?

 reds8n wrote:
So if Clinton/similar Democrat won the election could they then appoint Obama to the Supreme Court ?


That'd be entertaining to watch

I like your style!

Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.

Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)

Well, mebbe anyway...

It'd get rather silly if a Justice had to rule on whether a law that he himself had passed was constitutional or not (obvious conflict of interest, but still).

I don't care, I'd rather have a Supreme Court full of people with actual experience and actual wisdom than last years "What's New at Harvard?" review.

 jasper76 wrote:
Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.

Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)

Well, mebbe anyway...

Right... because in your capacity as a judge, one would never have been responsible for tough decisions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It'd get rather silly if a Justice had to rule on whether a law that he himself had passed was constitutional or not (obvious conflict of interest, but still).

We've had one President go on to serve on the Supreme Court in William H. Taft. He was President from 1909 to 1913 and was Chief Justice of the United States from 1921 to 1930.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.

Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)

Well, mebbe anyway...

Right... because in your capacity as a judge, one would never have been responsible for tough decisions.

Not sure what you mean...

My main point is that being a noteworthy litigator in academic circles is not a substitute for experience.

 reds8n wrote:
So if Clinton/similar Democrat won the election could they then appoint Obama to the Supreme Court ?


That'd be entertaining to watch

Why would they? Isn't Obama supposed to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations as part of his plan to take over the world as the new AntiChrist?

Anyway, for those who watched the GOP debate last night (I didn't), was it really as bad, nasty, and vicious as CNN's report makes it out to be? Apparently, Bush was the only one to have read his Constitution that day, as he went against the others in saying Obama can nominate a replacement for Scalia, and that it should be someone who the Senate could actually reach consensus on. Which, of course, is the responsible, correct, and ideal answer, but I doubt certain members of the Senate will act in a responsible, correct, and ideal manner.

Saw this article and thought it was amusing: a debate coach rates the GOP candidates' performances last night.

It was like watching a bunch of little boys getting into a schoolyard fight. At one point I really thought Trump was going to try to physically throw his podium at Bush. Name calling, gut reaction attacks, false posturing, ignorance, being reprimanded on swearing...pretty much what one has come to expect from the current crop of GOP candidates.

As a former British Prime Minister once said: "A week is a long time in politics."

Things could get interesting.

I watched the debate.

In memorial of Scalia, there were a whole lotta "jiggerity-pokery" last night.

It finally got nasty, for good reason.

Keep in mind that South Carolina is next, a religious southern state that *really favors the military (they have a bunch of bases).

Scorecard:
-Rubio is BACK baby!
-Cruz is a shade behind Rubio
-This was Bush's best debate and landed solid punches on Trump. (too little, too late imo
-Kasich actually did okay, but he couldn't pull away with the pack.
-Carson... ZZZZzzzzzz what was that good doctor?
-Trump. He lost it. No really... he really, REALLY fething lost it. He's a 9/11 truther. Sounded like a Democrat blaming everying on GWB. I bet he loses his "front-runner status" soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.

Why would Cruz accept the nomination? If I were in his position, I certainly wouldn't.

First: It's just a "House of Cards" Dunbar reference where Underwood tried to offer the SC position to Dunbar to "take her out" of Presidential election.

Secondly: As minuscule of a chance this could happen (Obama would nominate himself first... really), I think Cruz would jump on it in a heartbeat. The GOP and even some Democrat would vote "just enough" to let him through as he won't be a thorn on their side in the Senate. He'll just puck up Scalia's thorn... so, there's not a "net loss" here.

Anyways, I was hoping someone would point out my Dunbar reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: anyone think that the big bugaboo in this election is now over the Supreme Court nomination, instead of Immigration?

IF so, that hurts Trumps, but it also may galvanize the base in both parties. I'm guessing that it'll galvanize the Democrat voters more... thoughts?

What if, horror of horrors, Obama actually did nominate someone to the SC that was acceptable to both sides by any means of measuring? CNN has an article about who might be on Obama's short list, and while I don't pay much attention to such things, the person at the top of the list was someone who, when nominated to the D.C. court (which the article says is usually the stepping stone to the SC), was confirmed by the Senate 97-0 (including Cruz and Rubio). What if Obama nominated the same guy to the SC? Or would today's partisan political shenanigans get in the way?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
What if, horror of horrors, Obama actually did nominate someone to the SC that was acceptable to both sides by any means of measuring? CNN has an article about who might be on Obama's short list, and while I don't pay much attention to such things, the person at the top of the list was someone who, when nominated to the D.C. court (which the article says is usually the stepping stone to the SC), was confirmed by the Senate 97-0 (including Cruz and Rubio). What if Obama nominated the same guy to the SC? Or would today's partisan political shenanigans get in the way?

Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.

It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.

*shrugs*

Buckle your seatbelt... it's going to get fugly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: also, this was Trump last night:

There is also precident that SC positions were filled in election years--five if I'm not mistaken. There is also precident that a Pres could fill the role with a recess appointment (Eisenhower did it with Brennan shortly before the election). Looks like McConnel will need to keep the senate open for business 24/7 for the next year. Maybe they could get some of their work done.

I'm not so sure the GOP has really thought through their decision to come out so quickly with opposition before Obama has put anybody forward yet. The longer they obstruct, the more immature the GOP looks to swing voters. Politically, it's a loser to anyone but a hard right voter. Plus, with Obama having already stacked the lower courts as liberal (9/15?), any controversial close SC decisions will split 4-4 and the decision gets kicked back to the lower courts. Looking at the docket, most of the decisions will go liberal by default.

 whembly wrote:
Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.

No there isn't, mainly because it's an exceedingly rare event.

It should also be noted that the only time a Supreme Court justice had been appointed during an election year (in the modern era) was during Reagan's final year in office (and that person was Justice Anthony Kennedy).

It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.

Are you talking about Anthony Kennedy? If you are, the seat to which he was appointed (which was Justice Powell's) was not vacant for 18 months; it was vacant for seven (June 26, 1987 to February 3, 1988).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.

No there isn't, mainly because it's an exceedingly rare event.

It should also be noted that the only time a Supreme Court justice had been appointed during an election year (in the modern era) was during Reagan's final year in office (and that person was Justice Anthony Kennedy).

Of course it's rare because these are lifetime positions.

It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.

Are you talking about Anthony Kennedy? If you are, the seat to which he was appointed (which was Justice Powell's) was not vacant for 18 months; it was vacant for seven (June 26, 1987 to February 3, 1988).

Oops, my math was way wrong. I could've swore that how Borked process took an inordinate amount of time.

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's rare because these are lifetime positions.

Right... But you said there was a precedence to not fulfill a vacancy, which is not true.

Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far: