Well, this is something totally unexpected. According to the San Antonio Express News, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a luxury resort in Texas:
Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.
. . .A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
He was older, and didn’t look in the best of health (I suspect a heart attack), but still—Justices tend to hang on forever.
I am sorry for his friends and family; and even the liberal women justices generally liked him as a person. But as a Justice he kept the court well behind the moral arc. As reader Howie (who sent me this piece) noted, perhaps Obama has time to appoint a more liberal justice before the November elections. Even if that can’t happen via Obama, it will happen via any Democrat who gets elected as President. We can expect stiff Republican opposition to any liberal candidate, for they too know what’s at stake.
This makes it more urgent than ever to get a Democrat into the White House, as a liberal replacement for Scalia will swing the court to a 5-4 majority for progressive decisions.
The President nominates, but then the Senate confirms, correct? So given that the Senate has a Republican majority, can there be a stalemate with nominations repeatedly voted down?
Absolutely, but the general view in Congress is that the President gets what he (or possibly she this fall) wants in terms of a Justice that leans in the appropriate political direction. That doesn’t mean that the GOP won’t be looking for ANY excuse to vote down a nominee, as they’ve done repeatedly (Democrats, too). Any nominee has to have a squeaky clean record.
Thanks for the explanation – as an Australian, I wasn’t sure of the rules.
At one time a squeaky clean record (in terms of ethics) was sufficient to get a nominee confirmed. Scalia was confirmed unanimously. Today, ideology trumps (no pun intended) everything. The Republican controls the Senate, which means that it is dominated by arch conservatives, will never confirm anybody who is even mildly liberal. Even a true centrist or somebody slightly to the right would have a tough time. Supreme Court nominations are highly politicized and has now become a major issue in the presidential election
I’m truly afraid that the real issue is whether America is a Christian country. Scalia thought so and did his best to make it so. Rubio and Cruz think so; either would appoint a like-minded justice. With Cruz, it might not really matter, though. He thinks the end is near, and when he holds the control of nuclear weapons in his hand, he’ll hear God’s voice telling him that’s why he’s there. And then, poof! Nuclear holocaust for all the world, just so Cruz’s Jesus can return.
Thus out-jihading even the jihadists.
Guess I might as well have that second dessert…
+1 to 2nd dessert;-)
I’ve been pigging out on my triple chocolate mousse birthday cake from a couple of days ago. Figure it’s just once a year…
Happy Birthday! And oh my, that cake sounds fantastic!
Yes, that’s our theory of birthday indulgence as well. After all, we only celebrate my, my husband’s, my son’s, my daughter’s, and each of our 3 dogs’ and 4 cats’ birthdays. (You shoulda seen us when we had guppies!)
LOL- I’m picturing tiny floating guppy birthday cakes🎂 Gup cakes?
@ Merilee
Le groan.
😀
Actually, it turns out that all our pets just happen to like whatever’s our fave cake at the time. What are the odds?
Diane and Merilee, you two are decadent! And in a good way, too!
Eating cake is what killed Scalia…
@ mordacious1
He’d definitely been packing on the pounds, hadn’t he?
“Leave the gun; take the cannoli.”
I suspect that the republicons will not approve any nominee in the hope that one of their guys becomes the next president and can appoint a Scalia clone to the court.
However, this will have an immediate effect on the court as there are a number of pending decisions that were likely to be 5-4. With Scalia gone any decision that is 4-4 means the lower court ruling will hold.
Can such a 4-4 SCOTUS case be brought back, again, once the court is filled?
I think if they issue a decision that is it for that particular case, but new cases come up all the time and sometimes old cases are overturned by a new ruling. Should the right get control of the court again, I am sure that any issue now affected will arise again. I don’t know all the rules, my daughter, who is a lawyer called to tell me about Scalia and she told me about the 4-4 rule.
So close… “An initial attempt to halt the implementation of the plan until legal challenges were heard was thrown out by a US appeals court in Washington in January.
However the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to suspend the plan pending the outcome of the litigation.
The ruling could have significant implications for the president’s attempt to cut down on carbon.”
[ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35538350 ]
(The good news – as I understand it – is that the Paris meeting shortcircuited the US dysfunctionality in making laws, and made the global process independent of it. Again.)
I mean, it is like Kyoto all over again.
If Obama can get a nominee confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate, it would be probably the most surprising event in American political history. If the next president is a Democrat and the Republicans still control the Senate, we can expect a long, contentious fight over whomever is nominated. The Democratic president, probably Hillary, might cave and nominate a conservative just to bring the Court up to full strength. She might do this also if another conservative should leave the Court during his presidency. I would prefer vacancies to seeing appointees the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito or Roberts.
I can’t see Hillary nominating a conservative. She might nominate someone who is seen as a moderate. That might not be horrible as often those who are moderates tend left once they get on the court–Harry Blackmun for example.
George H. W. Bush nominated David Souter, but he also nominated Clarence Thomas, a legal lightweight.
Most famously, Dwight Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, but of course, by today’s standard, Eisenhower’s policies were somewhat to the left of many Democrats.
The current right wingers on the court, like Scalia, are idealogues and they have little respect for precedent.
We shall see. It will be interesting, and hopefully not horrifying, to watch as this all plays out.
I agree that we can only speculate as to what Hillary would do. However, we can no longer expect that supposedly conservative judges will turn out to be liberals such as in the cases of Earl Warren and David Souter. These days nominees are so well vetted that we can be assured that a supposed conservative is actually a conservative and a liberal is actually a liberal. There will be no more surprises.
“George H. W. Bush nominated David Souter, but he also nominated Clarence Thomas, a legal lightweight.”
Clarence Thomas is not a legal lightweight. He was a federal judge prior to his elevation to the court and he now has over 20 years on the Court.
Disagree with his opinions and judicial philosophy, don’t denigrate his considerable experience.
The Republicans can’t leave the seat vacant for long, so if Hillary gets elected she gets anyone she wants. If Obama doesn’t do a recess appointment, but instead nominates a moderate, I bet the Senate confirms him/her immediately after Hillary’s election. Go with the moderate you know, rather than the unknown liberal that Hillary puts up. Of course, if Cruz or Trump or one of the other clowns gets elected, no confirmation until they take office. That would be a sad day for America everybody.
If Obama fails to get his nominee confirmed and Bernie or Hillary follows him into office, it will be back to business as usual in getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed — meaning that he or she should have no more difficulty getting a standard-issue liberal nominee with a clean background and topnotch qualifications confirmed than Obama had with Sotomayor or Kagen (although the days of a unanimous confirmation are probably a thing of the past, given that any Democratic nominee would likely draw a protest vote from rightwing, tea-party ideologues).
No SCOTUS nominee has had a strongly contested confirmation vote since Clarence Thomas, and no nominee has been “borked” since, well, Robert Bork, and both those cases were sui generis. Elections have consequences, as they say, and one of them is that the person elected president gets to name, within reason, the Supreme Court justice(s) of his or her choosing.
The current, Republican senate is unlikely to confirm any nominee Obama sends its way. (No surprise there, but what is surprising is how quickly and expressly the Republicans have made their recalcitrance known. I doubt the priest in Texas had finished administering Extreme Unction to Scalia’s corpse before Ted Cruz came out saying Republicans should obstruct any Obama nominee, and then Mitch McConnell immediately hopped on the bandwagon so as not to be upstaged by the detested Cruz. Such an announcement is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the history of the Republic. In the old days, the opposition party would at least have paid lip-service to giving the president’s nominee a fair hearing, while doing its best behind the scenes to drag out the nomination process through election day.)
There are two ways in which Obama could give the Republicans fits in rejecting his nominee. One would be to nominate a sitting or former centrist senator. (The US Senate is still the nation’s most exclusive gentlemen’s club, and it would be very bad form for it to deny one of its own a full and fair confirmation hearing.) The other would be to name a centrist minority nominee — one whom the Republicans would find it politically uncomfortable to be accused of treating unfairly during an election year.
Any way you cut it, this has the makings of an interesting election season.
The Republicans in the Senate have already announced that they would block any Obama nominee:
“In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president’s term.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5
There is absolutely no surprise here.
In the Netherlands, this would count as political suicide. Why even bother getting elected if you don’t intend to vote? Does McConnell want to be payed by the taxpayer without doing anything in return? Is that the job of a senator nowadays? It will be at least 10 months before a new president will take the oath.
Is it any wonder why the populace is so sick and tired of our government and the partian politics that hamstrings anything getting important done? I understand there are numerous ambassadors that have been awaiting a confirmation vote for years. The Republicans won’t even let the nominees get out of committee. How is Obama possibikty get a Justice cinfirmed?
Hey Mitch, are you sure you have 11mos yourself?
McConnell is such a jerk. I believe he pledged to sit on his hands even when Obama was elected the first time. I miss Jon Stewart’s turtle imitation of him…
Sub
I have to admit that I’m greatly relieved by this event. Still, I’m not sure we can count on a replacement before Obama’s term ends.
Sadly, I’m convinced there’s no chance in hell of that happening.
Scalia was a firm defender of the first amendment, no one stronger.
Do you know any justice that was not a firm defender of the first amendment? He was not a firm defender of all parts of the document when it did not serve his philosophical temper.
Seemed biased towards Christian rights.
Scalia recently said in a speech at a Catholic university that the first amendment only applies to Christians. L
Untrue. Got a verbatim quote and a link?
Not verbatim but how close does it have to be
to understand how he views the “first”?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html
Yes, I remember that quote and it’s clearly a grossly mistaken view of the First Amendment, particularly for an “originalist”.
It may be grossly mistaken. I think it is. But it is not remotely an assertion that “the first amendment only applies to Christians.” I think truth and accuracy matter.
Sub
Well, I have to say, Scalia is my favorite Justice to show up missing, if somebody has to. I can imagine the Republicans dragging things out interminably while Obama is in office hoping for a republican getting elected in November. Can they do that? The way things are polarized in the country now, I would not expect the Senate Republicans to want to approve anyone under Obama based on the tradition that he is supposed to get what he wants.
What reasonable and appropriate time (do Republicans expect) ought Obama wait to nominate a replacement? (After January 20, 2017?!?) When one or more Democrats start to complain? Seems like Obama is in the catbird seat on this matter. How about possibly a nominee of Oriental or Native American heritage? More likely and politically realistic, an African-American female?
By the way, did Dick Cheney happen to be at that same gathering? 😉
Dick Cheney crossed my mind, too…
And mine. Scalia did vehemently argue against gay marriage, and Cheney does have a gay daughter.
Maybe the hosts of the guest ranch (resort) are friends of Cheney’s, and maybe they used poison. The plot thickens… along with the southern style gravy… and biscuits…
Excellent! I nominate Anita Hill!!!!!
How about Michelle O.?
Ah, but (SCOTUS) Justice Clarence Thomas and law professor Anita Hill go way back. He treated her to sexual harassment, she admitted it when called before Congress, and Congress put him on the Supreme Court, anyway. I think it’s fair and long overdue to put a black woman on the Supreme Court, and she’d not only be knowledgeable and skilled, but a fairer fight against that SOB.
Michelle Obama would also have to recuse herself on every case involving her husband, whom, I’m willing to bet, the Republicans will still try to crucify and/or lynch, once he’s gone from the White House. He’s their scape goat for all things wrong with America. (Not that he’s perfect, mind you, but scape goat is something altogether different.)
I have often used the following quote:
Oops! I forgot to close the {blockquote} tag properly.
Nice reference! And now only one RAT to go…
Have we got yet another New Math?
🙂
What’s the longest a SCOTUS position has been left empty? Obama needs to fill it, because a Democratic successor will lose re-election over it, no matter who or how moderate or even right wing that successor’s choice. Obama must have someone in mind, considering RBG’s age for one example. This could turn out to be perfect timing — or, it could turn out to be horrible, if Republicans run the clock out, so the next president fills that slot, and Obama is succeeded by Ted Cruz… I hate to even consider the thought.
The GOP will delay, delay and then delay some more praying to their non-existent deity that they steal the White House back this fall. If the Democrat wins, it will be a huge victory for the American people, for our civil liberties, for minorities, for the environment, for religious freedom & the separation between church & state.
Does Obama have an alibi?
ROTFLMAO!!! I’d thought it, but I hadn’t dare speak it, LOL!
Please pardon the profanity of that first string of letters…
!
I was thinking of the Texas Senator (?) who shot one of his colleagues in the back a few years ago.
And, of course, checking the bathroom for dead hookers.
Has anyone reported how many wetsuits he was found in?
Where was the tangerine?
It makes it more urgent than ever to get a progressive Democrat into the White House. I.e. not Clinton.
Wow! This is huge.
I don’t think the court will 4-4 for long. Ike appointed William J. Brennan during the Senate recess (he had a Republican Senate), but this would fill the position to at least the end of the year and if a Dem gets elected, what difference would it make?
Should be interesting, especially with the election coming up.
LOL. We do not live in the age of Ike. Mitch McConnell took less than 10 minutes to say he would not allow it. The GOP will simply ignore any appointment Obama makes and wait for the new President. AND, if that President turns out to be a Democrat, we can expect the confirmation hearings to take all 4 years. I am in no way joking or exaggerating.
I agree with you. Not unless we also manage to deliver the House and/or the Senate to the Dems.
I predicted what might happen ahead of FoxNews, but they have it now:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html
Sinc McConnell already tipped his hat, Obama should pounce. What has he got to lose? The goodwill of the Republicans?
A shame that it has to happen so quickly! But as has been mentioned earlier here (by you?), he must have had candidates already in mind.
I agree he should pounce–but doubt that he will, alas.
I’d call in ol’ Mitch and say, “Here’s the deal. I’ll wait and nominate someone who is a moderate, if you guys will confirm him/her. Either that, or I’m appointing Stephen Reinhardt, the most liberal judge in the US, to the Court. You decide”.
You’d trust McConnell to keep his word?
No vote is ever taken in the Senate without the outcome already known to the leaders. Those who lie end up having their careers ended (no support from their party to get re-elected). Of course, cross party deals are much more difficult to ensure, especially with a lame duck president. If Mitch lied to Obama, he couldn’t be an effective Senate Majority Leader and would have to be dumped. Though, as I stated, being a lame duck certainly makes it possible. They might have to make a side deal with something McConnell wanted. I doubt McConnell would even make the deal, but then we’d have Justice Reinhardt for a year…who would reek havoc on the court. Those carbon emission cases, for example. Fun times.
On the contrary, I think McConnell’s party standing would escalate, if he cheated Obama out of a SCOTUS seat by lying in a deal.
mordacious, you’d make a darned good political operative. 🙂
But doc beat me to the obvious response…
I don’t think we have sufficient evidence to prove that Scalia actually had a heart.
Good one!
He had a demon one, for he believed in them.
I see from the NY Times just now that Cruz is decreeing from on high that Obama should not nominate anyone. I wonder on what date already passed Cruz holds that his decree kicked in?
So Mr. Cruz, if you’re elected president, then during the last year of office you won’t expect to do anything? What kind of president is that? And why do you look like Grandpa Munster?
OMG, I know his face was familiar the day I met him (glad-handing at an event supporting the real Constitution, when he’d just started running for senate). Grandpa Munster, indeed!
I think Paul Ryan looks like Eddie Munster. It could be a Munster/Munster ticket.
And, if we put a long, black wig on Carly Fiorina, we’d have Morticia…
Yeah, but she’s an Addams.
Oops
Morticia was a fabulous woman. NOthing like the liar Fiorina.
You’re right! Again, my bad.
Making Republican strategist Steve Schmidt Uncle Fester.
And Mitt Romney always struck me as having an almost-human, Lurch-like quality.
LOL! Ah, but we’re still mixing Adams’s into the previous Munsters. Still, I like your additions to The Family (yes, pun intended).
Lily, but no mention of Morticia is ever unappreciated.
Yes! That’s the correction I needed: A long black wig with a white streak: Lily Munster! Thank you. And, yes, Morticia had a special aloof elegance, didn’t she? I aspired to be like that, sometimes, in front of the mirror, when I was so young.
sub
The coming political battle, in which Republican Senators are seen as trying to subvert the Constitution, might yet prove beneficial to the nation.
…and this is why Obama must nominate someone after a certain period of national mourning. The charge of “obstructionism” looks bad to some independent voters. Here they go again…kind of thing.
I think the GOP has completely abandoned independent voters a bit ago. I expect the most total fight-to-the-death dann-the-constitutional-crisis obstruction we have witnessed since a bunch of states just flat out left the union.
Many Senators will be up for election in November too, right? So maybe Obama should wait as long as possible in the hope that the majority party will change before the nomination reaches the Senate.
That’s cutting it pretty close, but it is one reason for optimism! Thanks!
A third of all US senators (who serve staggered six-year terms) come up for election every other year.
This election cycle, the Republicans have a large number of incumbent seats they are trying to defend. So yes, they are vulnerable to political pressure.
Is there any historical precedent for this situation (a SC justice dying nearly a year before a lame-duck president leaves office, with the other party in control of the Senate)? Can the Republicans really just stall indefinitely? Has such a tactic ever been employed?
Sort of. Anthony Kennedy (a current justice) was confirmed in 1988, the last year of Reagan’s presidency. But in that case, Bork was nominated in 1987, but was not confirmed and Kennedy was the second nomination.
He served 30 years too mnany. I believe he will go down as among the worst justices who have ever served for such a significant amount of time. Accomplished nothing while merely slowing the inevitable. A true dinosaur.
Sadly, Justice Thomas may not have been as egregious, but he has had no original thoughts, quite possibly, in his lifetime.
Here’s some info that gives hope that Obama can get his pick:
“Over the past 40 years, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate confirmation is 67 days (or approximately 2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months). The longest time until confirmed by senate (in past 40 years) was 108 days .”
Here is a link with the appointment process and there is a blue chart in the middle that lists the #days until confirmed for all justices confirmed over the past 40 years.
Obama has another 340+ days in office (until 1/20/2017)
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf
The chart called “Number of Days from Nomination to Final Vote” is halfway down this pdf document.
Thank you for the interesting and enlightening resource.
I think we are way out of the zone of historical precedent. The court has become too central to issues too core to the parties identities. Just think of the energy that the GOP devotes to gay marriage and abortion alone… two issues that are currently 99% court issues. Their base will not allow them to approve an Obama nomination regardless of the cost, regardless of the precedent. If it causes a constitutional crisis… so be it. For conservatives, this is the final line before the liberal victory in the culture wars is complete. A pretty good chunk of them would rather burn it all down than let that happen.
That’s probably a little pessimistic. I’d say if Obama nominates carefully, he’ll get the appointment. Even some of the bitter, reactionary right will give in to save the republic.
I hope you are right. I’m sure you are right that some of them will give in, but enough? I don’t know.
I am supporting Bernie Sanders, but if we get stuck with Hillary and she sould win the Presidency would she appoint Obama to the cour. He taught Constitutional Law for 12 years or so?
Obama would run into too many “conflict of interest” situations and have to recuse himself, as Republicans continued to scapegoat him over his presidency. I think they’d lynch him, old style, if it would keep the sheeples distracted from what their representatives are really doing to them on behalf of the rich.
This is a reason not to support Sanders. Sanders cannot win a general election and frankly, swinging the SCOTUS to the left is more important than anything that Bernie is promising (especially, since he cannot deliver with both houses being Republican). Hillary is much more of a moderate and should be able to work with the Congress much as her husband did.
Exactly!
I actually think Sanders, who comes from a red state where he’s been repeatedly elected to office time after time, knows more about how to win the White House when the populace almost accepts that it’s the Republican’s turn.
I also think that, if Cruz or Rubio wins the Rep. primary, some of Trump’s supporters will go straight to Sanders, while others will get there soon enough.
Yeah maybe, except Vermont is a blue state.
My bad: I should have double-checked the propaganda I heard. Thank you for correcting me. This time, I did double check, and you’re quite right.
Upon what foundation rests the “conclusion” that, if Sanders is elected that the Republicans will still control Congress?
The gerrymandering foundation? I’m no expert, but that’s my guess.
But that isn’t a factor in senatorial elections.
Oh yeah… ‘doh.
Red states are still red, I haven’t seen any change there. Republicans were very adroit at setting up congressional districts to favor them. I just took a look at the Senate map (which seats are up this year) and see a very possible gain for the Dems in IL & WI, but they might lose NV. At this point, I don’t see 4 seats switching.
If Republicans remain in control of Congress, no new Democratic president (whether Bernie or Hillary) will be able to push their agenda into legislation. The Republicans loathe Hillary in particular and will do everything in their power to obstruct her.
Who in the Republican field do you think can beat Bernie? (Certainly not Trump or Cruz, as they are unlikely to draw voters outside their bases, resentful white men and rightwing ideologues, respectively. I’m not sure either could win even a large majority of registered Republican voters.)
Plus, if he were to be elected, Bernie would be more likely than Hillary to have coattails pulling along Democratic congressional candidates further down the ticket. Unlike Bernie, Hillary’s candidacy in the general election would be unlikely to bring many new, or excited, voters to the polls.
“Electability” is a weak argument for nominating Hillary. It’s based solely on a phobia over the “socialist” label, a remnant of the Cold War.
In another comment, you described the effects of the Senate’s Old Boys Club. Could that effect actually benefit a President Bernie Sanders?
The US Senate doesn’t show any favoritism toward the legislative agendas of former members who become president.
Just ask former junior senator from Illinois Barack Obama.
Oh. Yeah. Good point. (How could I forget?!)
“Sanders cannot win a general election”
This appears to be false. In one-on-one match-up polls between the Democrat and Republican candidates, Sanders wins every time by a big margin, and by a significant margin over Clinton, who in fact loses to some of the Republican candidates.
Current poles are not to be trusted. If Sanders is the nominee he will have to undergo months of merciless attacks by republicans which will chew him up pretty good (they’ll call him a socialist and he won’t deny it) and probably give the presidency to one of the monkeys. Especially true if the economy turns South, which it very well might.
The Republicans have been attacking Hillary for almost 30 years…no one knows who Sanders is. If he were to get the nomination, they’d label him a commie and I guarantee he lose against anyone but Trump. Unless his opposition is found in bed with a male prostitute a week before the election. Then it would be close.
The new guy always looks good in the beginning, that fades.
You can’t trust Clinton (or Obama) to nominate a jurist that would go against the corporate donors they have spent large parts of their careers serving. Can you expect Clinton or Obama to work to overturn Citizens United or any of the other pro-corporate, anti-democracy decisions? No.
So on the contrary, this is a reason to support Sanders.
Although Clinton does not instill trust, she would not be likely to misuse a SCOTUS nomination simply because Wall Street gave her money. She’s got much the same goals as Sanders, I’m sure, but she’s not going to try to pull a revolution – just evolution.
Something you have to seriously think about as a Sanders supporter is how well he’d actually do against a full frontal attack by Republicans in the general election. They wouldn’t even have to lie in calling him a socialist. The result of two or three Republican picks for the court would be catastrophic. It would take another 30 years to restore balance.
What? Of course any Obama or Clinton nominee would most likely (read: definitely) vote to overturn Citizens. There were four votes in dissent on that case: Stevens (Ford), Ginsburg and Breyer (Clinton I) and Sotomayor (Obama).
The independent voters in this country (like me), tend to be moderate in their voting patterns. We don’t like far right or far left candidates. If it’s Trump vs. Clinton, Clinton will win. Cruz vs. Clinton, Clinton wins. Rubio vs. Clinton, toss up. Sanders vs. Rubio, Rubio wins, Sanders vs. Cruz, Cruz wins. Sanders vs. Trump, slight advantage Sanders (because Trump is just whacked).
Do tell why you would vote for Cruz against Sanders?
I wouldn’t vote for either, that’s just my prediction on how the rest of the country would go. If I don’t have a candidate I like, I vote either for a 3rd party candidate or not at all. It doesn’t matter anyway, since I live in CA and for quite some time, the Dem always wins this state.
Sanders is popular because he promises things like universal health care and free college tuition. With a Republican House (and probably Senate, too), there’s no chance any of his domestic agenda gets passed. With Russia re-emerging and the Middle East in turmoil, it’s not time to put anyone like him in charge of foreign policy. Clinton has shown she’s a pragmatist and fairly conservative with foreign affairs, plus she’s the only one with any experience in that area.
Thanks for the reply, mord. 🙂
Cruz and Rubio are much further to the right than Sanders is to the left. Bernie has been in public life for over 30 years; if you don’t know who he is, it’s because you haven’t looked. Anyway, the “unknown” complaint was the same scare label that was used against Barack.
What is it beyond the “socialist” tag that you think the Republicans will be able to use to damage Sanders? Bernie has owned that label for a long time; it’s not like the Republicans are going to spring it on the public. The phobia over the word “socialist” is a hold-over from the Red Scare; it’s time we all got over it.
And, yes, Bernie wants universal healthcare and free higher education. What kind of sense does the way the nation now pays for healthcare and higher-education make? Left to their own devices, the rightwing would do away with free public K-through-12 education.
Anyway, without a Democratic congress, Hillary will be no more able than Bernie to get any legislation enacted.
“What is it beyond the “socialist” tag that you think the Republicans will be able to use to damage Sanders?”
I wonder what fraction of Cruz’s/Trump’s constituencies, who rage against socialism, would have a problem with Republicans attempting to do away with their SOCIAL security.
As my mother-in-law was always quick to point out to me, “I paid for my benefits”. Hence she saw nothing ‘social’ about it.
Also, Medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions for public employees, disability benefits — these are all “socialists” programs that were vehemently opposed as “creeping socialism” by rightwing Republicans.
If you say, “I want free college for all”, you’re not going to get it. If you ask for some assistance with college, with tax credits and are willing to give something up to the other party, then you might get that There’s no one running that wants UHC more than Hillary, but she’s tried that and knows it won’t happen. We have the ACA and the best thing is to add coverage to that a little at a time until there’s something close to UHC.
Having goals and ideals doesn’t mean your unwilling to compromise. Bernie has been a mayor, a congressman, and a senator, and has shown a pragmatic willingness to bargain with the opposition in each.
Indeed, to be a pragmatist, you have to have clear goals and ideals, to know how close you can come to them through negotiations. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible. That’s different than the Clinton style of running about, willy-nilly, making whatever ad hoc deals seem to be politically expedient in a given situation.
“you’re”
“would she appoint Obama to the court.”
That would play into the conspiracies which claim that he’s protected her from prosecution.
This is a good example to show why just concentrating on one office, the executive, can become almost a waste of time in this country.
Because of how this particular deal is done, getting a new person on the court, it takes a vote of 60 in the Senate. The democrats have about 46. So Obama can send in nominations until the cows come home and nothing gets done.
Also would like to point out that the Senate is probably the most undemocratic institution in our federal government. Think of it – around 500,000 thousand in Wyoming have the same power in the Senate as 40 million in California.
So how do you like this democracy?
Apparently you’re not a strict constructionist?
No, I don’t believe I am. But to change the situations I stated here would require a lot more than loose interpretation. It would take an amendment or two. Long overdue I might add.
The Senate is non-democratic by design — part of the compromise the northern states had to strike at the constitutional convention to keep the southern slave-holding states in the Union. The Senate functioned well as the South’s bastion against anti-slavery forces for the nation’s first four-score and seven years — and then, after the Civil War, for another hundred years as the grand protector of Jim-Crow apartheid, preventing passage of any federal legislation that would infringe upon the South’s prerogatives, from anti-lynching to civil rights laws.
Do you know whether there any other nation with such a bicameral system? And if so, do you know whether theirs works any better? I take it there can never be a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Senate, because the South would never give up that advantage.
“As of 2015, somewhat less than half of the world’s national legislatures are bicameral.”
Thank you. That helps.
The Senate is a creation of Article I of the Constitution, so could be changed (or even abandoned) by constitutional amendment. But the small states in the union, whose political power is magnified by the Senate as is, would never go for it. Might be easier to abandon hot dogs, apple pie, and the Fourth of July.
The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states as sovereign bodies (i.e. the state governments), and so each state is represented equally.
I gather that there is a nominal fraction of Amuricuns who desire that the country return to senators being elected by state legislatures, as originally prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, their (main?) justification perhaps being the reasoning you offer?
Interesting: It makes sense from the viewpoint of hierarchy within a state, but it still represents hierarchy rather than equality. And, yet, I don’t know a better way around it, so that the people in states with small populations can be equally heard on a federal level.
Oh. Wow. I was just talking about him last week and how he probably wasn’t going anywhere for a while.
Could you please talk about Thomas, too?
Yeah, and my obnoxious next door neighbor?
May they be less obnoxious and please not die because I typed about them?
LOL, Mark and Doc!
I did, but it was kind of rude and you can probably guess about it pretty accurately.
happy that Scalia is dead. He was a liar and a theocrat.
now, cue the conspiracy theories that Obama’s muslim secret police killed his sorry ignorant ass.
With a delayed action poison, on a dart from a drone?
yes. It must be polonium. 🙂 really really fast acting polonium.
Nope. People are wise to that. Something biological. There’s probably a Kenyan spider poison that would fit the bill. and the dart.
Australia and Brazil have lots of poison sources, too.
Ah, but the wingnuts haven’t (AFAIK) haven’t accused Emir Obama of being an Australian or a Brazilian.
Yet.
LOL! Maybe that’s next: “Oh, yeah, Obama’s ears only look so big because his head is so small. He’s got that Zika virus, head-shrinking thing going on!”
The republicans will stonewall any nominee until after the election. Obama may appoint their best candidate; after all, without Scalia there’ll be no Trump card on the Court! (Pretty clever of Obama, don’t you think?)
Now my thoughts are turning to who Obama will nominate. The obvious choice is Sri Srinivasan, according to many pundits and he’s more than qualified. But is that the wise choice? If Obama hadn’t already placed a Hispanic on the Court, I’d say go with that. Do the Republicans want to piss off the Hispanics right before the election? Hmmm. I’d go with another Hispanic anyway, as long as they’re otherwise qualified, it will lose Republicans the most votes in November. Or he could nominate a white male and shock everyone.
Srinivasan was confirmed two years ago as a circuit judge by a Senate vote of 97-0, so as a candidate he would serve as a stark example of Republican obstructionism if they refused even to consider him.
He’d also leaven the court’s religious composition, which is now five Catholics and three Jews. Srinivasan took the oath of office on the Bhagavad Gita.
I take it that would make him the first Hindu to serve on the SC?
Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers)2/13/16, 4:45 PM
This would be an excellent day for Justice Clarence Thomas to continue his tradition of just doing whatever Justice Scalia does.
Video coming soon, I hope?
Ha ha. Good one.
The news report said Scalia didn’t show for breakfast, so someone went to his room and found him in bed, dead. I can’t help but wonder whether a hooker had already been in there…
I was thinking male prostitute, but that’s why these guys do stuff at “a ranch in Texas” rather than a resort where the staff might squeal. I always thought Scalia would go by choking on a meatball…proved me wrong.
Not if the “meatball” was part of that male prostitute’s anatomy.
My thought is that Obama will nominate someone. It is his duty to do so. But the republicans will not even let it get to a vote. So one of the few important jobs of the Senate – hearing and filling judicial positions, will not get done. And this pretty much upholds what the Senate has been doing for years – nothing.
They have *already* tweeted out their promises to not let it get to a vote. So.. yeah.
Yeah, I’m just talking for the other 5 people in the country who don’t tweet.
My other prediction would be that regardless of who is elected president (a democrat) the republican control of congress will continue in both houses. And if Trump ends up with the nomination, the republican party will be in chaos.
Is there no way to impeach the stonewalling senators for not doing their job, when their job is to vet and vote on the president’s nominated candidate for Supreme Court Justice?
Only if you could impeach Democrat senators who block Republican nominations. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Threatened_use_of_nuclear_option_during_Bush_presidency
and the Gang of 14 Republican and Democrat senators who threatened to short circuit the gridlock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14
But this time, the effort to block came far ahead of the naming of a nominee. There is no plausible deniability to hide behind, none at all.
Seems rather unfair that the House has no input into this.
The U.S. Constitution allows both House and Senate to make up their own (rather undemocratic) rules. IIRC, House rules allow for a so-called “discharge petition” (a minimum of 218 votes?) to be initiated by a House member, to force a bill out of committee for a full House vote. I gather these are rare, re: retributive “party discipline.”
I wonder if the Senate has a similar discharge petition mechanism.
To be honest, this news fills me with more alarm than hope. This is already perhaps the most politically unstable moment of my life. We already have a semi-fascist demagogue likely to win one nomination, potentially tearing one party apart and if we are unlucky who knows what else. We have a highly divided opposition party and a potential 3rd party spoiler. The GOP will stonewall this vacancy right through this bizarre and contentious election. It’s gasoline for the bonfire… it will only make the election more tense, more fraught, more of an all-or-nothing fight to the death for all parties. It will only make all sides much more angry. A lot of actors seem close to being willing to burn the house down before they allow their opponents to win. And what if something wonky happens, like Bush v Gore, with a vacancy on the court (Sanders v Trump v Bloomberg)? What if Trump is elected with a vacancy on the court? I can imagine him not even making a nomination, hoping to capitalize on a weakened court.
This would be much more hopeful news in year two of some new administration. Right now I just find it an alarming dose of extra instability in a country that seems frighteningly unstable from my vantage point.
Just to add to your angst, don’t forget to worry about who’s programming the automated voting machines.
(And I’m not jesting!)
I think you worry too much. Tearing up the GOP is maybe our best hope. It could eventually be a windfall for the democrats who are looking like they need all the help they can get. A near total blowup of the republicans could allow the democrats to get control of congress at the midterms.
The Dems would have that now if only more of them would bestir themselves to vote.
If there is a third-party candidacy this year (say, Michael Bloomberg) and none of the three candidates for president obtains the requisite 270 electoral votes, the outcome will be determined not by the courts but by the House of Representatives — as happened in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson was elected president on the House’s 36th ballot.
These are, undoubtedly, times that try men’s souls, but we have had many such times before. The Republic will survive very well, thank you.
Hmmm…. the Republic survived secession, but that’s cold comfort to the people alive in 1861. 😉
Personally, I feel it is time to move beyond many of the old political ideas of the 18th Century. Scallia was a man born long after his time.
If Bernie wins the nomination Obama could appoint Hillary. (Yes, I think he can win and would make a better president than Hillary.)
Hilary wouldn’t want it. She makes so much more money not being on the Supreme Court that being on it would literally, easily cost her millions in speaking engagements, alone. I bet she’d rather wait and try one more time for the presidency, and maybe that third time will be the charm, too.
By the same argument she doesn’t want to be president either, as that would mean less speaking engagements.
Oh, no. The presidency would increase her credibility, raising the price of her speaking engagements. The Presidency doesn’t come with a high salary, compared with CEOs of large corporations, so it’s an investment toward future income based on that rareness of having once been The President Of The United States. Otherwise, presidents would serve, then go bankrupt.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/politician-speaking-fees-speeches/
former President George W. Bush makes between $100,000 and $175,000 for every speech he gives and that he has given at least 200 speeches since leaving office in 2009. A bit of simple math translates that activity into more than $30 million…
really took off with Gerald Ford, Politico notes—which makes sense, since Ford didn’t ever really plan to run for president and likely figured he would stay in the House much longer than he did. Ford took umbrage when he was criticized for making money off of his former job, saying that as a private citizen he could leverage his past however he pleased…
Washington Speakers Bureau—home to many high-powered speakers, including George W. Bush and his wife Laura—was founded in 1979. These agencies have played a major role in the skyrocketing fees that high-powered speakers now command…
middleman, that adds to the cost (darn govermment unions!)
But why exactly are organizations willing to pay so much for an hour of a former politician’s time? It isn’t for the content, that’s for sure. Generally, speakers and those who hire them are mum on just how much money gets handed over for these engagements—which, by the way, aren’t usually the most thought-provoking or newsworthy speeches. (Politico notes that in one speech to a bowling industry group, Bush let loose the earthshaking bon mot that “bowling is fun.”)…
Though speakers fees are often kept confidential, we do have a few estimates of what famous ex-politicians make:
Bill Clinton supposedly made around $225,000 for a gig last February.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and one-time Republican presidential hopeful, is said to have pulled up to $270,000 for a speech.
Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor, former Republican vice-presidential candidate, and all-time cable news and tabloid fixture—is said to have made $115,000 for a speech in 2011.
fringiest of also-rans—think Howard Dean and Herman Cain—have big-time speakers agents
Did Trump pay for Palin’s “endorsement”?
I can’t imagine that she’d do it for free. I can imagine her eyes lighting up in dollar signs like some cartoon character, though, when she first got the news of his invitation.
“The Presidency doesn’t come with a high salary, compared with CEOs of large corporations . . . .”
Don’t forget college sports coaches. E.g., one in NC has made $1.2M/yr, three times the salary of POTUS. And that coach’s responsibility weighs so much more heavily than that of the POTUS. (sarcasm) And that’s a rather modest salary compared to other sports coaches.
IIRC, the head of the NFL makes $40M/yr.
Am reminded that the NY Times recently chewed on Chris Christie for not staying in NJ more due to his high $175K/yr salary. I wonder what the publisher and editor of that august tome make.
I would never wish for the death of a fellow human being. (And, by many accounts, Nino had his share of redeeming personal qualities. He was also, it cannot be gainsaid, an extremely influential justice.)
But (to borrow a phrase frequently encountered in SCOTUS’ opinions) I concur in the Good Lord’s judgment here.
By any chance, was it Scalia, himself, who invoked that “Good Lord” bit?
Nah, I added that part.
When a justice agrees with the outcome reached by a majority opinion, but is unwilling to join in that opinion because he or she disagrees with its rationale, the justice will write: “I concur in the judgment only.”
What I was trying to suggest is that, while I had never wished for Justice Scalia to be shuffled off this mortal coil, I do concur with the outcome.
Ah!
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/justice-scalia-satan-is-real/
Scalia learned that his belief was correct.
Let’s tell all his fan club, and then put Satanist statues in every government location that has any other purely religious maker.
Elizabeth Warren…
.. or her clone…
Nice! Though who would be able to fill her current position as effectively?
We can all say what we will about Nino Scalia (and, lord knows, I mocked and criticized him mercilessly over the years), but his odd-couple friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (aka the Notorious RBG) never failed to lift my spirits a bit and to give a glimmer of hope about the human condition.
Plus, in spite of myself, I’m gonna miss knowing the big lug is still around and reading his opinions, even if I almost always vehemently disagreed with them.
Yes, his relationship with RBG surprises and opens minds. I am learning more about him since he died, and the fact that he set the precedent of accused actually being able to face their accusers matters. I gather his general view of the Constitution, that “originalist” idea, left an imprint on the entire legal profession, though I’m still trying to appreciate what it meant for things like voting rights, slavery, and women’s rights. Sure, he was against abortion, but how did that fit, when the Constitution said nothing about it?
It helps if you think of “originalism” as actually practiced to be basically akin to “biblical literalism”.
Yes, that seems to describe it perfectly! Maybe he was a biblical literalist, too? Still, that doesn’t account for Scalia’s stand on things not mentioned in either document.
Since he died, the first news stories — and Obama’s news conference — respectfully avoided the negative aspects of Scalia’s SCOTUS effects. They are coming out in the news, now, though. I heard some on NPR, balanced for courtesy against the voices of his supporters. As one person put it (and I paraphrase), women, the LGBTQ community, the poor, and prisoners on death row did not feel he did them equal justice.
One big consequence is Obama’s plan to tackle global warming faces considerably less legal peril than it did just three days ago. The court put a stay on Obama’s plans to force power plants to go green. With Scalia out of the way, the DC circuit will likely decide the issue. That’s because there will likely be a 4-4 SCOTUS tie. This is good.
How could an autopsy not be performed on a senior government official?
And to add insult to injury, Scalia’s body was moved quickly to Sunset Funeral Homes and was promptly cremated. But the body was not cremated until Judge Guevara determined that Scalia died of heart attack. A JUDGE Guevara, not a DOCTOR ! Guevera…..suspicious yet?
And Guevera, a JUDGE determined that Scalia died as a result of a heart attack, without an autopsy, or a doctor in attendance.
One final point: Scalia was a Catholic and the last time I checked Catholics are opposed to cremation.
Hummmmmmm….somethings a 👣
Oh, it gets better: “Judge” Guevara was actually a Justice of the Peace (JP for short), an elected position which requires NO legal training, even though they do sit as judge on their own little courts.
Plus, Scalia was “on vacation” in Texas without wife, kids, grandkids, or even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, his best friend, at the very same time multiple important Texas cases (abortion rights included) are before the Supreme Court.
And, he was ridiculously far from medical assistance (EMS, doctors, not to mention a hospital), despite his age and apparent health. That part of Texas is much like the old Wild West, with human traffickers (“coyotes”) instead of bandits.
So, who WAS there with him? Who invited him way out to the middle of Nowhere, Texas, to go “hunting”? Who was he chumming around with? You can bet there were no women in the group. Yes, Texas has women who like to hunt, but the Old Boys’ Club is still all Boys, with a capital B.
I believe there was a little initial confusion in the media over whether Scalia’s remains were cremated, but clearly they weren’t, as he has been lying in state for at least a day, now. The lack of an autopsy, though, or reporters’ details on who he was with at the hunting resort, still bother me, especially since Texas Public Radio went into some detail describing the resort, itself. It seems very remote and exclusive, with long historical significance.