Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic ***** slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic ***** slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a ***** slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a ***** slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

As I recall, conservatives largely attributed that to Reid's obstructionism in the Senate?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Breaking on Drudge Report:

'Scalia Found With Pillow Over Head'

Sub headline states 'Update: It wasn't a heart attack'

DRUDGE REPORT 2016®

 

[Vigilante]

Housekeeping: send up a few more pillows to Obama’s room ASAP.

 

[Faun]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

Dumbfuck.... the reason no one has noticed that is because Obama isn't looking to nominate a Supreme Court justice as recess appointment. He's looking to appoint someone who will serve on that bench for life (or retirement).

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Weep about what, ya dumbfuck?

Again -- Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment here. The article you posted bears no relevance to reality in that regard.

I can't believe how ******* retarded you are.

 

[Vigilante]

Apparently no one has noticed this about recess appointments.... To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress....TA DA!!!

Dumbfuck.... the reason no one has noticed that is because Obama isn't looking to nominate a Supreme Court justice as recess appointment. He's looking to appoint someone who will serve on that bench for life (or retirement).

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Weep about what, ya dumbfuck?

Again -- Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment here. The article you posted bears no relevance to reality in that regard.

I can't believe how ******* retarded you are.

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL

'Pillow found over his head'. Maybe he comitted suicide?

See, if these dopes that took over the bird sanctuary in Oregon had waited a few weeks they could have taken over the Bed Bath and Beyond and demanded the truth about Scalia's death!

Instead they were stuck in a bird museum requesting ding-dongs and gatorade.

Pick your battles peeps.

 

[JQPublic1]

And since when do repubs have the right to have an edge in the SC forever?

As long as they can....you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing? LMAO

maybe but the question is what's good for america ?,,,,can there be no compromise ahead in our lifetimes ...must hate and anger permeate{sp} our elections? will we be divided forever??

Do you mean the hate and anger fostered by Obama's divisiveness, lies, and intentional fumbling of American interests?

That is EXACTLY what we need to get rid of, and it requires that we let no more Obama appointees get confirmed.

All the hate and anger began with Mitch McConnel stating that Republcians only job was to make certain Obama was only a one term president. When it has come to Obama's nominations for judges, the obstructionist agenda of Republicans has been unprecedented. Now it is time for the Dems to take back the Senate and keep the White House so we can make certain that the rubes to not get a chance to send the SCOTUS back to the dark ages.

You say "obstructionist". I say "patriotic".

Say what you will, Obama, as President, represents the will of the people through their votes. The trust put in him has been affirmed by his two terms in office. His choice for a candidate to replace Scalia should NOT be abrogated by partisan politics or just plain hatred. The candidate should be evaluated solely on merit and past performance.

 

[candycorn]

It seems most Republican feel the right course is to delay any confirmation until a new president is in the white house and if that new president is a democrat then the Senate should just sit on any nomination for as long as it takes to get a true conservative nominee like Scalia. The problem with this thinking is the court as it stands today, without Scalia is a much more liberal court and there is certainly no guarantee that the next president is going to be a republican or the next Senate will have a republican majority.

That is easy to say on day 2 of a vacancy. Whereas there are likely dozens of vacancies in lower courts that few "man on the street" types have heard of (Eastern District of Washington State or whatever), having a vacancy on the Supreme Court is visible.

The Constitution (which Republicans hug and swear they live by every moment of every day) says two things about Supreme Court nominees:

The President nominates the person to sit on the court.
The Senate approves or rejects them.

Its strange (not really) how the republicans choose to not uphold the Constitution all of the sudden....

Anyway, for most ordinary Americans, it's this simple...you do your duty. If the Senate rejects the nominee, they reject it. But this is the process. Absolutely nothing states that the Senate has to confirm whomever the President nominates...but they have to consider it and hold a vote outside of a filibuster.

Again, this is the process.

If we get into the late Spring with the GOP refusing to do their duties, pressure is going to mount. It will become a campaign issue and when Hillary starts beating the GOP over the head with it day after day...you'll see the GOP change their tune.

I think this does open the possibility of some negotiation between McConnell and Obama. Republicans might settle for a middle of road nominee if it looks like the next president is likely to be a democrat or vice versa.

If I'm the President, I don't return the phone call if they are not debating your nominee. If they are actively debating the nominee, holding hearings, etc.... thats one thing. You roll the dice and you take your chances. The Senate is not there to do the bidding of the POTUS. But if they are not debating it and now, all of the sudden, they are in the mood to deal...I let the phone ring, walk out to the Rose Garden and crank up the heat on Mitchell and the boys by calling again on the Senate to do their job.

Until the late 1930's, no one seem to be concerned about the court being partisan. A president might nominee someone that they felt would render a favorable ruling for the railroads, banks, or the union, or whatever but not because they were a liberal or conservative or any particular political ideology.

Over the last 40 years, the public perception of justices is that they are just politicians wearing black robes. The criteria for nomination is whether the nominee will carry the party line. Objectivity, knowledge of law, and intelligence are all secondary.

I think some of the more craven among us look at it as that. I've seen rulings go both ways over my time on this celestial rock that make me shake my head. I've said hundreds of times, I don't see how you can be forced to buy insurance yet, the ACA sits (thank goodness) as the law of the land. How they tie free-speech to money is a feat of the imagination...but there it sits. Do I agree with a lot of rulings? No. Do I think "my side" got an honest hering? Yes.

Yes, there are judges that turn on their masters and render surprising verdicts. However, from the Pew 2012 study on partisan polarization, each side is getting much better at grooming future nominees. Grooming starts decades before they are every placed on the president's short list. These candidates are often affiliated with networks of conservative or liberal lawyers that have replaced more neutral groups like bar associations. And they are drawn more than ever from federal appeals courts, where their views can be closely monitored. The goal of course to find potential nominees that will vote along ideological lines ignoring arguments and statues contrary to those lines.

Once we accept that it's ok for the highest court in the land to render verdicts based not on law, evidence, and arguments but on political, religious, and economic ideology, what does that say about our judicial system.

I think you're a victim (too strong a word, I know) of the "doctrine of clean hands" in some ways. It basically states (in the way I'm using it) that there was a time when we had impartiality and the rule of law was the only thing ever considered. I contend that there was never a time when we had total purity of the law. Hell, in 1804, the Executive and the Congress tripled the size of the nation without a single syllable about being able to do so in the Constitution.... That was 15 years after the thing was ratified. Judges have been "inventing" statues and standing for the life of the nation. I think that you're stating that Scalia or Alito or Ginsburg or my gal Sotomayor sit around and think, "I want to make sure we have a school lunch program so how can I tie it to a clause in the Constitution?" I doubt that happens. I think a case will come up and you have some Justices who look at starving children who have one time a day to get a balance meal because their parents are not doing the job and say, "Well, that's tough TImmy...nothing in the Constitution says you're entitled to a good meal" and other Justices who look at starving children who have one time a day to get a blanced meal beause theeir parents are not doing the job and say, "Well, it's not your fault Timmy and seek to promote the greater good"; much like having the 28-30 states that the LA Purchase allowed for helped the greater good.

If you're worried about what it says about our nation that some justices feel kids should get balacned meals or that Texas shouldn't be able to allow Blue Bell Ice Cream to poison customers or that men and women who live 50 miles from the nearest police station should be able to keep weapons for personal protection...I think you're worried about the wrong things.

Having strictly political justices would be a nightmare. I don't think the President would want that and I don't think the Senate would allow that. This is the type of argument that RWNJs would make.

 

[Faun]

This is funny .... in 2007, Chuck Schumer (NY-D) made a similar proposition as Republicans are making today ... check out how Republicans responded to this idea when made by a Democrat....

• "This is a strange tack for Schumer to take. Normally exalted members of the world's greatest deliberative body posture themselves as being fair and open-minded before questions of great weight are decided by them. But this time Schumer, who is diabolical but no fool, has shifted course and steered onto another tack. Why? Why would Schumer betray to the whole world that he simply will not give the nominee of the president of the United States to the Supreme Court a fair hearing?"

• "What he fails to understand is that he doesn’t have the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Or is it the case that his personal feelings or quest for power are more important than the Constitution."

• "I suppose that this piece of New York excrement would be declaring it one of the high lights of his career if it had been one or two LIBERAL pukes had been appointed to the SC. He is an (_*_)"

• "I would say this statement should be used by the Republicans to say Chuck Schumer should be taken off the committee. He has made up his mind on all nominees before they are even nominated."

• "But that’s the thing. These people have elevated the opposition to doing ANYTHING....and the only barrier is if they can get away with it. No constitution, no tradition, no fairness."

• "The Dems know that a HUGE portion of their base is either fanatical or ignorant and that they can get away with almost anything . The sheeple follow the Dems without question. They are so blind in their vengeance against Bush that they accept everything and anything the party does.The Dems leaders know this and take full advantage of their ignorant base. You surely don’t think the Dem leadership actually believes half of what they say do you ? I’m sure that behind closed doors the Dem leadership must laugh their asses off over how stupid their loyal followers actually are."

• "This is a terrible failing on Schumer's part. Away with this "confession" act as if that matters. He flat out screwed the pooch, and I for one don't accept this apology. The only penance I'll accept is his resignation."

• "Schmuckie’s latest hand-wringing over the Alito appointment leads me to think there’s another SCOTUS retirement in the works. He and his henchmen in the senate make me sick."

• "Why Schumer hasn’t been tried for Treason yet is beyond me..."

more on freerepublic.com

 

[ZackB]

As long as they can....you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing? LMAO

maybe but the question is what's good for america ?,,,,can there be no compromise ahead in our lifetimes ...must hate and anger permeate{sp} our elections? will we be divided forever??

Do you mean the hate and anger fostered by Obama's divisiveness, lies, and intentional fumbling of American interests?

That is EXACTLY what we need to get rid of, and it requires that we let no more Obama appointees get confirmed.

All the hate and anger began with Mitch McConnel stating that Republcians only job was to make certain Obama was only a one term president. When it has come to Obama's nominations for judges, the obstructionist agenda of Republicans has been unprecedented. Now it is time for the Dems to take back the Senate and keep the White House so we can make certain that the rubes to not get a chance to send the SCOTUS back to the dark ages.

You say "obstructionist". I say "patriotic".

Say what you will, Obama, as President, represents the will of the people through their votes. The trust put in him has been affirmed by his two terms in office. His choice for a candidate to replace Scalia should NOT be abrogated by partisan politics or just plain hatred. The candidate should be evaluated solely on merit and past performance.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate were also elected to represent the will of the people. In fact, it is the will of the people that We have a Republican controlled House and Senate. How did these Republicans get elected? They were elected on promises to stop Obama, and this occurred, in the case of the Senate, AFTER Obama was elected to his second term. Therefore, it seems to me that they owe it to their constituents to block any and all leftist hacks nominated by Obama.

 

[bodecea]

I kept hearing it was a given the Dems would retain the Senate in 2014

how's president romney doing?

he he he

Who controls the Senate? he he he he. Dumbasses

Ask us again on a Wednesday in November....Dumbass.

GFY Candy Corny...how's that?

You sure greet people a lot with that RW greeting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Obama nominates a moderate Hispanic, the GOP will be against a wall. Their true "right wing loser" colors will come out.

Somehow, I think sticking it to this President will override that concern. Who knows, maybe they know they already look like dirt to that demographic and will jsut say, "**** it".

The political reality of Justice Scalia's death is likely the greatest blow to the Conservative Movement since Stonewall Jackson being killed by his own men. R.E. Lee was reported to have said that he had just lost "his right arm". The conservative anchor of the high court has passed. And us liberals have a golden opportunity to sieze the court for the next generation (or 2) if we don't screw up and nominate Bernie Sanders who simply cannot win in the General Election unless there is a MAJOR gaffe by his Republican Opponent. And by MAJOR gaffe, I'm saying something along the lines of using a racial slur or flashing a Crips or Bloods gang sign at a rally....

Its time for the Democrats to get serious about the election and install Secretary Clinton as their standard bearer. She is not only the best qualified person on either side in this election, she is the best qualified to take on the GOP. Obama's first year to eighteen months was almost criminally naive in terms of what he expected from Congress. Ms. Clinton will have no such illusions about the opposition. For them, it's party over people, principles that are for sale to the highest bidder, and a morally bankrupt constituency that seems to think a realty TV star is our best bet going forward.

These are the stakes; not only for the time and place but for the nation. I mean, who is he going to nominate for the High Court? Judge Judy...based on the fact that more people listen to her decisions than any other judge?


As we discuss the political reality, we should keep in mind that Justice Scalia had a large family and was admired (if not agreed with) by his contemporaries. He was a remarkable public servant who deserves our thanks for his service. We need more people like him--who will put up with the slings and arrows for 30 years in the public limelight when he could be making millions upon millions in private practice.

I agree with most of your statements however, I think we should be looking for really fair impartial judges. With the exception of political junkies, I think this is really what most Americans want. In so many countries, judges are bought and paid for before they ever sit on the bench. They serve their masters, not the people.

I would invite you to closely examine Chief Justice Robert's status of "bought and paid for"; after being appointed by President Bush 43, I think those who bought Mr. Roberts may be asking for a refund. Additionally, didn't Anthony Kennedy get appointed by Reagan or Bush 41? Now he's seen as left leaning.

Moreover, I'll quote "Larry the Liquidator" from the great but overlooked movie, "Other People's Money". He is discussing lawyers with Penelope Ann Miller and comes off with this brilliant quote; "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they **** up everything." If you can assure me that there will be no more Citizens United rulings, no more rulings that allow States to draw any voting district those in power want, allow companies sell our information to anyone with 2 nickles...I'll be happy to appoint Dudley Do-Right to the bench. Until then, I want someone who leans toward protecting privacy, protecting freedom of choice in reproductive rights, and someone who thinks there is probably some connection between 300 zillion guns on the streets and our outsized number of gun deaths

Whether we're conservative or liberal, we need to be looking for judges that know the law, the constitution, and can put their personal and political beliefs aside and judge cases based on their merit. Unfortunately in Washington, a good judge is one that will rule in favor of issues you support regardless of the law or case.

Well, that's just human nature when you have to be the decision maker or arbiter. It's a very tough gig and as I stated, I admire justices like Scalia who put up with 30 years of being called every name in the book when they could be pocketing 7 figures easily in the private sector.

---

I would be tickled pink if we could find a surrogate that agrees to serve until the Senate confirms a new justice. Get someone universally respected like Bob Dole or Warren Rudman or Sandra O'Connor to fill in until the new President is sworn in on the condition that there is no filibuster of the new President's choice. It would be a terrible deal for the Dems likely but we would have some decisions handed down instead of allowing partisan politics to first delay the decisions then delay the appointment of a new justice....

It seems most Republican feel the right course is to delay any confirmation until a new president is in the white house and if that new president is a democrat then the Senate should just sit on any nomination for as long as it takes to get a true conservative nominee like Scalia. The problem with this thinking is the court as it stands today, without Scalia is a much more liberal court and there is certainly no guarantee that the next president is going to be a republican or the next Senate will have a republican majority. I think this does open the possibility of some negotiation between McConnell and Obama. Republicans might settle for a middle of road nominee if it looks like the next president is likely to be a democrat or vice versa.

Until the late 1930's, no one seem to be concerned about the court being partisan. A president might nominee someone that they felt would render a favorable ruling for the railroads, banks, or the union, or whatever but not because they were a liberal or conservative or any particular political ideology.

Over the last 40 years, the public perception of justices is that they are just politicians wearing black robes. The criteria for nomination is whether the nominee will carry the party line. Objectivity, knowledge of law, and intelligence are all secondary.

Yes, there are judges that turn on their masters and render surprising verdicts. However, from the Pew 2012 study on partisan polarization, each side is getting much better at grooming future nominees. Grooming starts decades before they are every placed on the president's short list. These candidates are often affiliated with networks of conservative or liberal lawyers that have replaced more neutral groups like bar associations. And they are drawn more than ever from federal appeals courts, where their views can be closely monitored. The goal of course to find potential nominees that will vote along ideological lines ignoring arguments and statues contrary to those lines.

Once we accept that it's ok for the highest court in the land to render verdicts based not on law, evidence, and arguments but on political, religious, and economic ideology, what does that say about our judicial system.

The doctrine of substantive due process has been settled and accepted for over 125 years, acknowledged and followed as precedent by judges, justices, and other jurists in determining when government has overreached and enacted laws and measures in violation of the right to privacy; it is the substantive component of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause that safeguards the right of women to decide whether to have a child or not, free from unwarranted interference by the state.

Clearly there are manifestations of Constitutional jurisprudence which are beyond the realm of 'political ideology' and 'partisan dogma,' where to respect, obey, and follow that settled, accepted jurisprudence is not to vote or rule along ideological lines, but to instead vote or rule in a manner consistent with the rule of law.

For a president to appoint judges to the Federal courts, or justices to the Supreme Court, who will acknowledge and follow this settled and accepted case law is not to perceive them as 'liberal,' but jurists acting in accordance with the Constitution and their oath of office.

 

[bodecea]

****! Now Obama gets to appoint another one! ****!

we can drag out the confirmation...then vote it down.

Such is the reprehensible, partisan right – to do this even when the nominee is perfectly qualified.

Think about it Clayton...Obama was "qualified" when you morons voted him into office. What good did that do?

Quite well, thank you for asking.

 

[Synthaholic]

By assuring Obama that he need not worry that a nominee will actually serve on the Court, McConnell empowered and invited the president to play radical politics with the nomination. The big concern Democrats have (or should have) about 2016 is the decline in turnout that occurred between 2008 and 2012. Obama’s support dropped by 3.6 million votes between his election and his re-election. The Republican ticket gained only 900,000 votes over the same four years. Absenteeism was most marked among younger voters and Latinos.

What saved Obama was the loyalty and commitment of African Americans: their participation actually increased between 2008 and 2012—and it was their ballots that provided the president with his margin of victory. If they should feel uninspired in 2016, the Democratic nominee is likely doomed. Democrats will want to do everything they can to rev up African American excitement and energy.

Such as for example, nominating somebody like Eric Holder, who might welcome his nomination with a fiery statement about voting rights, affirmative action, and Black Lives Matter. Republicans would of course go wild, denying him a hearing … and Democrats would gain a bloody shirt to wave in November. Emancipated from worrying about the best candidate for the bench, they could instead use the nomination to elect their candidate to the Oval Office.

The Republican Party's Internecine Fights Spill Into the Open

 

[TemplarKormac]

By assuring Obama that he need not worry that a nominee will actually serve on the Court, McConnell empowered and invited the president to play radical politics with the nomination. The big concern Democrats have (or should have) about 2016 is the decline in turnout that occurred between 2008 and 2012. Obama’s support dropped by 3.6 million votes between his election and his re-election. The Republican ticket gained only 900,000 votes over the same four years. Absenteeism was most marked among younger voters and Latinos.

What saved Obama was the loyalty and commitment of African Americans: their participation actually increased between 2008 and 2012—and it was their ballots that provided the president with his margin of victory. If they should feel uninspired in 2016, the Democratic nominee is likely doomed. Democrats will want to do everything they can to rev up African American excitement and energy.

Such as for example, nominating somebody like Eric Holder, who might welcome his nomination with a fiery statement about voting rights, affirmative action, and Black Lives Matter. Republicans would of course go wild, denying him a hearing … and Democrats would gain a bloody shirt to wave in November. Emancipated from worrying about the best candidate for the bench, they could instead use the nomination to elect their candidate to the Oval Office.

The Republican Party's Internecine Fights Spill Into the Open

Linking to overtly liberal articles doesn't make you look objective, you know that?

 

[Debra K]

And 4-4 ties can still benefit Obama.

Congress won't do anything
Repblicans need SCOTUS to invalidate Obama executive orders
4-4 ties won't do it

The first court to hear the case is NOT the Supreme Court. Their decision will hold.

That's assuming lower courts rule against Obama's executive orders.

Anyone with a room temp IQ can see that Obama is an ignoramus when it comes to the Constitution.

I think he just believes he doesn't NEED to know it, because he should be allowed to rule as king.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time,” said President Obama. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a full hearing and timely vote.”

The President's words show that he does know the Constitution. He is not an ignoramus, nor does he believe he should be allowed to rule as king. I think you're confusing President Obama with GW Bush who desired to be a dictator: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

 

[rightwinger]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

Consider the clock will start again with a new President with vetting and confirmation of a new Justice taking another four months
That will leave us with a "tie court" for 15 months

 

[rightwinger]

If this had happened say 2-3 months before the election I'd say they could stall that long and not get beaten silly over it. Not now, it's too far away. 9 months away, almost a year. A stall like that would herald in a permanent break-down of US Constitutional government.

If one party can in effect rule on their own in perpetuity by delay this form of government has run its course. We will have reached a point where one cohort in the population has deemed their beliefs trump the Constitution or form of government we have.

Go read some history, this is how democracies end. Not with a big bang, but by slow strangulation.

I say they let Obama make a recess appointment, and the new justice will only serve until December. They will be out a job in January when the new Congress takes their seats.

I say, why give him any concessions at all if we can avoid it? If he can be kept from making a recess appointment, do it.

The Democrats, if they need to, can in a year block anyone a Republican president would nominate.

Cons you seem to think you live in a world where you always get what you want, like a child. Once again reality is going to slap you in the face.

Republicans have started a game of not.....we don't agree with the selection but ....we don't agree with you doing the selecting

They are also starting a precedent of a short court for indefinite periods

 

[JimH52]

By assuring Obama that he need not worry that a nominee will actually serve on the Court, McConnell empowered and invited the president to play radical politics with the nomination. The big concern Democrats have (or should have) about 2016 is the decline in turnout that occurred between 2008 and 2012. Obama’s support dropped by 3.6 million votes between his election and his re-election. The Republican ticket gained only 900,000 votes over the same four years. Absenteeism was most marked among younger voters and Latinos.

What saved Obama was the loyalty and commitment of African Americans: their participation actually increased between 2008 and 2012—and it was their ballots that provided the president with his margin of victory. If they should feel uninspired in 2016, the Democratic nominee is likely doomed. Democrats will want to do everything they can to rev up African American excitement and energy.

Such as for example, nominating somebody like Eric Holder, who might welcome his nomination with a fiery statement about voting rights, affirmative action, and Black Lives Matter. Republicans would of course go wild, denying him a hearing … and Democrats would gain a bloody shirt to wave in November. Emancipated from worrying about the best candidate for the bench, they could instead use the nomination to elect their candidate to the Oval Office.

The Republican Party's Internecine Fights Spill Into the Open

Ask Karl Rove how that worked out for him.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

having an even number of justices seems like a good way to go the more i think about it

Having only 8 justices will probably mean that some cases that should be heard by the court won't be. Some cases may end in a tie vote which is not fair to the plaintiff or defendant as the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In a tie, the party that brought the case to he court can ask the court to hear the case a second time with a full bench. If the court agrees, then the other party would have to go through the process a second time.

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court