You mean the current Congress that calls itself a Republican majority but has rolled over and given Obama everything he wants? I wonder if any more will just randomly die in their sleep before election day?
Scalia was the man who inspired me to research what the process is for removing a sitting justice from the SCOTUS. For that I'm grateful. I learned something new.
Beyond that, pleasant journey.
Here's a scenario you guys in particular should find appealing. Obama resigns his POTUS seat, passing the baton off to Biden for the remainder of his term and appoints HIMSELF to the seat vacated by Scalia. The affirmation hearings would be the ugliest in the country's history BUT I don't think there's a "constitutional" barrier to him doing it. Wm. H.Taft was president AND subsequently Chief Justice so there is a historical precedent.
I'd like to see him attempt it simply for the joy of watching neo-con heads explode like a scene from Mars Attacks. LOL!!
You mean the current Congress that calls itself a Republican majority but has rolled over and given Obama everything he wants? I wonder if any more will just randomly die in their sleep before election day?
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are the only ones left really. So I'd be nervous if I were them.
What difference does it make? I mean all supreme court justices, only interpret the Constitution, the way the founders intended. There is never any agenda... /sarcasm.
Here's a scenario you guys in particular should find appealing. Obama resigns his POTUS seat, passing the baton off to Biden for the remainder of his term and appoints HIMSELF to the seat vacated by Scalia. The affirmation hearings would be the ugliest in the country's history BUT I don't think there's a "constitutional" barrier to him doing it. Wm. H.Taft was president AND subsequently Chief Justice so there is a historical precedent.
This is why letist liberals are so entertaining. They have such vivid imaginations and an almost complete separation from reality.
(....and by the way, Taft was nominated by President Harding in 1921, EIGHT YEARS after Taft left the office of President.)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-13-2016).]
(....and by the way, Taft was nominated by President Harding in 1921, EIGHT YEARS after Taft left the office of President.)
I'm aware of that. My point was there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents a former OR sitting president from being a SCOTUS justice. The limitation specifically applies to an individual holding both posts simultaneously but, by resigning from the POTUS, that issue would be moot.
I'm aware of that. My point was there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents a former OR sitting president from being a SCOTUS justice. The limitation specifically applies to the individual holding both posts simultaneously but, by resigning from the POTUS, that issue would be moot.
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I'm aware of that. My point was there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents a former OR sitting president from being a SCOTUS justice. The limitation specifically applies to the individual holding both posts simultaneously but, by resigning from the POTUS, that issue would be moot.
I hope if evil or misfortune should befall you or your family, I would be more gracious. I do hope you enjoy your celebration of Scalia's death as much you'd like us to believe.
My condolences to the Scalia family, may he rest in peace.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
You accuse me of having too much imagination. I, Sir, accuse you of having too little.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
I hope if evil or misfortune should befall you or your family, I would be more gracious. I do hope you enjoy your celebration of Scalia's death as much you'd like us to believe.
بالعافية!
Gracious? I highly doubt that. As far as "misfortune" befalling me or my family, I wouldn't anticipate an overflow of tears from this quarter. Why they suddenly became a matter in this conversation eludes me but I'm certain there's a point in there somewhere....subliminal though it may be.
BTW....the Arabic script at the bottom. I'm curious. In the Khaliji dialect, it's an expression of gratitude and well wishes. In the Maghrebi dialect, it's an insult condemning the person you're addressing to the fires of hell. I doubt anyone with your capacity for "graciousness" would choose the latter so it must be the former you're trying to communicate. Gratitude.....just what are you thanking me for?
Whatever it is, you're quite welcome.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-14-2016).]
You accuse me of having too much imagination. I, Sir, accuse you of having too little.
I assure you Sir I have a sufficient supply of that commodity. It is a good part of what earns my livelihood in R&D That said, I am also very successful at not confusing it with *reality*, as our leftist. liberal friends are much prone to do.
With the advanced age of many of the Supreme Court justices and the current occupant of the White House well in mind, it should certainly come as no surprise to you that political contingency plans for just this event have been well discussed and formulated.
Not to rain on your imaginary parade too much, but the longest vacancy in Supreme Court history was 27 months, when the Senate kept rejecting Pres. Tyler's choices.
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: .......so there is a historical precedent.
Indeed.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-13-2016).]
It should be interesting to see who is nominated, this I will confess.
I suspect that there will be one or more that have no chance of confirmation so as to make some political points of some kind.
Thankfully, any nominees still have to be confirmed so there is still a good chance that the next occupant of the oval office will get to make a choice.
Based on Obama's other nominations, I fully expect this to be in the news for quite some time.
Edited: Just read this so, I'll pass it on as scuttlebutt rumor but this guy is supposedly first in the barrel. We'll have to wait and see.
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-13-2016).]
While Obama could install another lefty Justice, Don't forget that there are 3 just as likely to pass. Also 3 more are in their 60's and 1 55 years old. So although I think it sucks that such a seat would get filled by a liberal, I remain optimistic that The next president could potentially replace 3 or more.
Died (Antonin Scalia) 3/11/1936 - 2/13/2016 Age: 79 yr 11 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986 Served: 29 yr 4 mo Anthony Kennedy Born 7/23/1936 - Age: 79 yr 6 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988 Served: 27 yr 11 mo Clarence Thomas Born 6/23/1948 - Age: 67 yr 7 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991 Served: 24 yr 3 mo Ruth Bader Ginsburg Born 3/15/1933 - Age: 82 yr 10 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993 Served: 22 yr 5 mo Stephen Breyer Born 8/15/1938 - Age: 77 yr 5 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994 Served: 21 yr 6 mo John G. Roberts Born 1/27/1955 - Age: 61 yr 0 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005 Served: 10 yr 4 mo Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Born 4/1/1950 - Age: 65 yr 10 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006 Served: 10 yr 0 mo Sonia Sotomayor Born 6/25/1954 - Age: 61 yr 7 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009 Served: 6 yr 6 mo Elena Kagan Born 4/28/1960 - Age: 55 yr 9 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010 Served: 5 yr 6 mo
Definately sad to hear Justice Antonin Scalia has passed.......
Ofcourse, Senate Democrats are warning republicans not to block Obama Justice Nominee.
quote
Democrats said that with 11 months left in President Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, said it would be “shameful” to put off a replacement that long.
Yeah, like they wouldn't prop up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's lifeless corps is a chair connected to a ventilator and heart monitor just to hold the seat for 4-8 years if a republican were nominating the next Justice......
Ofcourse, Senate Democrats are warning republicans not to block Obama Justice Nominee.
Yeah, like they wouldn't prop up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's lifeless corps is a chair connected to a ventilator and heart monitor just to hold the seat for 4-8 years if a republican were nominating the next Justice......
I don't see a problem with an 11 month long interview process, I work with plenty of people whose interview process was well over a year.
Their best bet is to cut a deal with Obama now while they still have some leverage. I can see Obama compromising. If Bernie is elected and if the 'Bernie revolution' and surge continues and coat tails the congress there would be fewer bargaining chips for compromise.
Here's a Reader's Digest of a Wiki article on this topic.
Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, and must be confirmed by the United States Senate. Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed: most recently, President George W. Bush withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers before Committee hearings had begun, citing concerns about Senate requests during her confirmation process for access to internal Executive Branch documents resulting from her position as White House Counsel. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan withdrew the nomination of Douglas H. Ginsburg because of news reports containing marijuana use allegations. Once the Senate confirms the nomination by an affirmative vote, the President must prepare and sign a commission, and have the Seal of the United States Department of Justice affixed to the document before the new Justice can take office. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Thus, when the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment to any office requiring Senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be formally nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The ability of a president to appoint new justices depends on the occurrence of a vacancy on the Court. The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. It is also theoretically possible for Congress to create additional vacancies by expanding the Court itself. The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but in Article III it authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices.
While Obama could install another lefty Justice, Don't forget that there are 3 just as likely to pass. Also 3 more are in their 60's and 1 55 years old. So although I think it sucks that such a seat would get filled by a liberal, I remain optimistic that The next president could potentially replace 3 or more.
That's true.
I'm rather surprised that Bader Ginsburg outlived Scalia. I saw a televised "America and The Courts" PBS special recently and she was the primary speaker.....she looked like one of Macbeth's witches.....frail, skeletal.
I hope if evil or misfortune should befall you or your family, I would be more gracious.
I doubt it.
quote
I do hope you enjoy your celebration of Scalia's death as much you'd like us to believe.
I think the exuberant level of exaltation over the death of Teddy Kennedy by most of the more radical conservatives on this particular forum a few years back showed us precisely the level of compassion many people here on "your side" feel over the death of a perceived "political enemy". The fact that your panties get even a little bunched over someone not even being nearly as rank about it with Scalia - especially after not making the same sort of the posthumous defense of a Democrat (Kennedy, Ferraro, others who were demonized here after their death and wished well on their trip to hell by many) shows the level of miserable hypocrisy inherent in the views of too many here. Indeed, even the beginning of this thread points out what a political nightmare this could be for the right because of a new appointment by a liberal president without really going into the more human aspect of the siutuation- like a man has died who was highly influential in all of our lives. It took until halfway through the first page for someone to remind us that flesh and blood, not (R) and (D) was in play. (Thanks, Ron.)
I hope Obama nominates a black transgendered person to the court so I can watch a bunch of your heads explode simultaneously.
On a serious note, my sincerest condolences go out to the justice's family. Brilliant man, one that has to be hard to lose. Always have been a closet Scalia fan, he was a champion of constitutional and individual liberties.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-14-2016).]
Since my other scenario didn't go over too well, maybe this one will be more to everyone's liking. It's certainly in line with some of the reasoning I've read here over the years.
quote
Did Leonard Nimoy Have Antonin Scalia Killed to Give Obama Enough Supreme Court Votes to Cancel the 2016 Election?
Donald Trump’s appeal to American patriotism has become one of the gravest worries of Democrat Party elites, particularly if he taps Sarah Palin and former President George W. Bush for his adminstraiton, as some have suggested. They fear his passionate populism could lead a revival in both houses of Congress. A strong Republican presidency would almost certainly derail any liberal globalist schemes and prevent the United Nations from seizing more of America’s sovereignty.
Nimoy’s Hand in the Assassination The wild card in this equation is likely Leonard Nimoy, who various leaked reports have identified as the newest leader of the Illuminati. While there is much debate about that secretive group’s ultimate motives, many citizen journalists suspect that they are expanding their control through both European-style socialism and Bilderberg-group branded international cooperation schemes. The recent Climate Change summit is the perfect example of this, as it gives foreign authorities the power to override both Congressional and Constitutional protections. As many know, the presence of the United Nations on American soil will lead to gun seizures and restrictions on Christian freedom of speech.
Illuminati supporters such as gun control activists, marijuana propagandists and the recruiters of sodomy are likely to immediately benefit from the Justice’s death. They will now have more room to promote their disturbing agendas on a national legal front.
Coincidentally enough, Marfa, Texas — the site of Scalia’s death — is reputedly a hotbed of radical liberal activity. Not only is the town well known for its alien contact and shrine to anti-figurative artist Donald Judd, the locale is also home to the International Woman’s Foundation, a communist front group. In addition, it was here that socialist novelist Ben Lerner wrote his infamous paean to out-of-wedlock childbirth, “10:04.”
Nimoy, the crowned “Pinnacle of the Draco,” has been consolidating power over liberal groups ever since he faked his own death last February. He has been commended in some quarters for brilliantly out-maneuvering the old guard of Rockefellers and the Rothschilds as he plots a technology-savvy future for the New World Order. It’s well known that Nimoy’s own radical liberalism was threatened by Scalia’s commitment to American exceptionalism, as best exemplified in his passionate defense of the court’s Citizens United ruling.
Correct me if I'm mistaken about this....but isn't Nimoy still dead?
Guarantee Obuma will try at least to shove a pro obumacare, anti gun, judge in his place. If its still open for the next president, even if Obuma got submitted, republicans would never let him in. With him on the Supreme Court, he would just finish off all the damage hes done as president. If a democrat is elected, I can completely see them trying to install Obuma.
Scratch Obama. HERE'S the nominee I'd like to see put forward. If nothing else, it may finally compel Clarence Thomas to utter a word or two in the court.
quote
Nominate Anita Hill for Supreme Court Justice
Anita Hill For Supreme Court
Now THAT'S Justice!
Anita Hill is a highly qualified legal scholar with all the right qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. She will be an excellent choice to make the most important decisions facing our judiciary.
Since my other scenario didn't go over too well, maybe this one will be more to everyone's liking. It's certainly in line with some of the reasoning I've read here over the years.
Correct me if I'm mistaken about this....but isn't Nimoy still dead?
Scratch Obama. HERE'S the nominee I'd like to see put forward. If nothing else, it may finally compel Clarence Thomas to utter a word or two in the court.
(kidding)
Obama resigns his POTUS seat, passing the baton off to Biden for the remainder of his term and appoints HIMSELF to the seat vacated by Scalia. The affirmation hearings would be the ugliest in the country's history BUT I don't think there's a "constitutional" barrier to him doing it. Wm. H.Taft was president AND subsequently Chief Justice so there is a historical precedent.
