SCOTUS: disaster if justice dies during a Repub congress

[Luddly Neddite]

The Supreme Court Will Be a Disaster If a Justice Dies During a Republican Congress

By Jeffrey Rosen @rosenjeffrey

On Friday, New York magazine's Jon Chait argued that the media has "wildly overstated the legislative importance of Republican Senate control" while at the same time understating its judicial importance. As he put it, "The contest to control the Senate is about one thing: whether Obama can confirm judges and staff his administration." A GOP Senate would spell "two years of likely gridlock," and "if a Supreme Court justice becomes incapacitated or dies, the judicial gridlock could become a Constitutional struggle."

Chait is absolutely right—and the possibility of a constitutional crisis is all the dramatic because there's no modern precedent for it.

More at the link.

 

[Roadrunner]

The Supreme Court Will Be a Disaster If a Justice Dies During a Republican Congress

By Jeffrey Rosen @rosenjeffrey

On Friday, New York magazine's Jon Chait argued that the media has "wildly overstated the legislative importance of Republican Senate control" while at the same time understating its judicial importance. As he put it, "The contest to control the Senate is about one thing: whether Obama can confirm judges and staff his administration." A GOP Senate would spell "two years of likely gridlock," and "if a Supreme Court justice becomes incapacitated or dies, the judicial gridlock could become a Constitutional struggle."

Chait is absolutely right—and the possibility of a constitutional crisis is all the dramatic because there's no modern precedent for it.

More at the link.

The Constitutional crisis is the low quality of recent justices.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“On the other hand, there’s no particular grounds for optimism with a Democratic president and Republican Senate. With their vitriolic obstruction throughout the Obama presidency, including a fight over the debt ceiling and a government shutdown, some Senate Republicans have shown a willingness to paralyze the basic functions of government—and might be comfortable with an evenly divided Court of eight justices, which could mean repeated 4-4 deadlocks and opinions that lack precedential value.”

They could, and likely succeed in alienating the entire Nation as a consequence of such hyper partisanism, resulting in democrats retaining control of the WH and regaining control of the Senate in 2017.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree. They should hold on until the Republican President assumes office in 2017.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Isn't the Supreme Court already majority conservative? A conservative getting in does what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't the Supreme Court already majority conservative? A conservative getting in does what?

Keeps it conservative, dimwit.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Isn't the Supreme Court already majority conservative? A conservative getting in does what?

Keeps it conservative, dimwit.

If a Justice on the bench dies and is a conservative, and a conservative Senate gets another conservative in, nothing changes. If a liberal Justice dies and a conservative gets in nothing changes. So yes, you're right but in the wrong sense of my questioninig the OP.

Ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't the Supreme Court already majority conservative? A conservative getting in does what?

Keeps it conservative, dimwit.

If a Justice on the bench dies and is a conservative, and a conservative Senate gets another conservative in, nothing changes. If a liberal Justice dies and a conservative gets in nothing changes. So yes, you're right but in the wrong sense of my questioninig the OP.

Ass.

I was correct, you're a dimwit.

 

[BlackSand]

“On the other hand, there’s no particular grounds for optimism with a Democratic president and Republican Senate. With their vitriolic obstruction throughout the Obama presidency, including a fight over the debt ceiling and a government shutdown, some Senate Republicans have shown a willingness to paralyze the basic functions of government—and might be comfortable with an evenly divided Court of eight justices, which could mean repeated 4-4 deadlocks and opinions that lack precedential value.”

They could, and likely succeed in alienating the entire Nation as a consequence of such hyper partisanism, resulting in democrats retaining control of the WH and regaining control of the Senate in 2017.

You are fairly smart when you want to be ... So why post this utter idiocy?

It is irrational to blame one side for failing to compromise in a two sided agreement ... No one is without blame when negotiations fail. It is also pretty hard to alienate the entire nation when the Democrats currently usually don't sway more than 55% of popular opinion on any issue.

.

 

[jwoodie]

To restate the OP, it would be a disaster if Obama is not given unilateral power to appoint Eric Holder to the Supreme Court. (To hell with the Constitution and Senate confirmation.)

 

[DGS49]

Any statement that the current Supreme Court is "conservative" is tinted by glasses so pink they would prevent one from driving during daylight.

This "conservative" court just jumped through ridiculous hoops to pretend that the so-called Affordable Care Act was not an unconstitutional mandate to enter into a transaction. It has continually declined to reign in either Congress or the President when they are taking manifestly unconstitutional actions.

Thanks to Harry Reid, the new Republican Majority will have the power to eliminate the filibuster rule by majority vote.

Now THAT would be a "progressive" initiative!