Justice Antonin Scalia, Known For Biting Dissents, Dies At 79

[Senethro]

The party system is the worm in the apple of american democracy. Its been in there a good long while and had the time to hollow everything out.

 

[warpus]

It's not the party system that's the problem, it's the two-corporate-friendly-party system that's the problem.

 

[Aea]

It's not the party system that's the problem, it's the two-corporate-friendly-party system that's the problem.

Por que no los dos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gay_Aleks]

You know, it's odd. I've noticed something outright bizarre. Everytime something related to democracy in America happens, and it's bad, it's always the evil lobbyists and the corporations and the sell-outs who give out their souls to the mighty shady Corporations. Interestingly, it's also one of the reasons people explain why they don't vote. "Nuh, but it's all pre-decided!". No it's not you idiot. Go vote. Go make a change. C'mon.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ugh, that guy...

That's another thread.

You're preaching to the choir... yeah he's the worst. Just be thankful you didn't grow up in CT (like me) having to listen to his repulsive whining sniveling swill your whole life. Or wait... did you say you were from New England too?

When was the last shutdown? It takes two to tango.

It exactly explains it. Blue dog Democrats were replaced by Republicans, not left wing Democrats. With the center vacated, the right extreme has proven more electable than the left extreme.

J

"More electable"?... I don't know, that's debatable. There's a big ballot access issue for Democrats. When you show up for the Presidential election in 2008 and have to wait in hours long lines to vote... yeah, its hard to get motivated to do that again for the midterms. Whereas when you can just breeze in on your lunch break, or on your way to work or on your way home from work, and vote in 5 minutes... why not vote in the midterms?

That inconsistency of ballot access is a reality for Democrats versus Republicans, particularly in urban and densely populated Suburban areas, and even more particularly in poorer neighborhoods, and high-minority population neighborhoods. And that inconsistency is partly to blame for the skewed results.

 

[metalhead]

And even though we know exactly where that happens because it has been happening there for decades, we need to take away an extremely effective tool for maintaining whatever tatters of the franchise are left for the people thusly targeted for disenfranchisement. Thanks, Supreme Court!

 

[warpus]

Sorry, I don't speak French

 

[Zkribbler]

Original intent of the Founders. Article II:

[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court . . . unless the Senators don't feel like it.

What's going on in the U.S. ZZZZZZenant:

WASHINGTON -- Republicans have vowed to spend the next year preventing President Barack Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

They've gotten plenty of practice already.

More than 30 judicial nominees are currently waiting for the Senate to confirm them to federal court seats. Some have been gathering dust for over a year, like Waverly Crenshaw, a Tennessee district court nominee who was nominated on Feb. 4, 2015. He would fill a court seat that's been empty for 441 days. Susan Baxter, a Pennsylvania district court nominee, would fill a seat that's been empty for 913 days, or about two and a half years.

Crenshaw and Baxter are among the 12 district court nominees who are ready for a Senate confirmation vote but going nowhere anytime soon. Another 22 district and circuit court nominees are sitting in the Judiciary Committee, waiting for a vote or a hearing of any kind.

It's not that these nominees are controversial. In fact, many were recommended to the White House by GOP senators. It's just that Republicans don't want Obama to put his judicial picks on courts. They'd rather punt all confirmations until 2017, when there might be a GOP president who would put forward nominees more to their liking.

In the meantime, court vacancies are rising, cases are being delayed for years on end and judges are burning out trying to keep up.

Obama on Tuesday noted the parallels between Republicans threatening to derail his Supreme Court nominee -- not that he's actually named one yet -- and the attitude they've taken toward his other judicial picks.

"In some ways, this argument is just an extension of what we've seen in the Senate generally," he said. "We've almost grown accustomed to a situation that is almost unprecedented, where every nomination is contested. Everything is blocked, regardless of how qualified the person is."

Republicans are already blocking Obama's judicial picks, so what's a Supreme Court nominee on top of that?

Last year was Obama's worst for judicial confirmations. Republicans, who had just regained their majority in the Senate, only let 11 federal judges through -- the fewest confirmed in over 50 years. The process for those nominees went something like this: Get nominated by Obama, wait months for a committee hearing, wait weeks for a committee vote, get unanimously voted out, sit on the Senate floor for months, get overwhelmingly confirmed. In other words, lots of sitting around that doesn't actually need to happen.

In some cases, the same GOP senator who originally recommended a judicial nominee to Obama is now the one holding up the process. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is currently running for president, recommended Florida district court nominee Mary Flores to the White House. She was nominated in February 2015, but hasn't moved since. That's because Rubio won't turn in his so-called "blue slip" to the Judiciary Committee. The blue slip signals that a home-state senator is ready to move forward with his or her nominee. Without that slip, the committee chairman won't give a nominee a hearing.

Flores' other senator, Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), has turned in his blue slip. If Rubio ever relents and turns in his own, Flores will fill a court seat that's already been empty for 644 days. That seat is also considered a judicial emergency, meaning its judges have more than 600 cases, or between 430 and 600 cases for over 18 months -- either way, a totally unmanageable workload.

To be fair, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did agree to move a package of five judicial nominees earlier this year, and all have been confirmed. But it's not clear when, or if, McConnell plans to let any more judicial nominees through while Obama is in office.

 

[Flying Pig]

Is there any procedural means to break such a deadlock, other than hoping that people will become sufficiently fed up with the Republicans for obstructing it that they'll have to budge in order to save their electoral prospects?

 

[Zkribbler]

Is there any procedural means to break such a deadlock, other than hoping that people will become sufficiently fed up with the Republicans for obstructing it that they'll have to budge in order to save their electoral prospects?

Perhaps use the "nuclear option," that is, when the new Senate is sworn in next January, it can adopt new rules by a simple majority vote. All the artificial obstructions can be blown away.

 

[Dachs]

Perhaps use the "nuclear option," that is, when the new Senate is sworn in next January, it can adopt new rules by a simple majority vote. All the artificial obstructions can be blown away.

That doesn't really work if the new Senate is majority Republican.

 

[Cutlass]

Is there any procedural means to break such a deadlock, other than hoping that people will become sufficiently fed up with the Republicans for obstructing it that they'll have to budge in order to save their electoral prospects?

The point to a separation of powers built into the Constitution is that the branches are in the long run all subject to checks and balances. But in the short run no branch by itself can really run roughshod over the country. It's a system which was designed to not get much done unless there was a pretty strong consensus to do it. Where that breaks down is when enough people get into office who would rather burn it all to the ground if they can't run it the way that they want to.

 

[Flying Pig]

Perhaps use the "nuclear option," that is, when the new Senate is sworn in next January, it can adopt new rules by a simple majority vote. All the artificial obstructions can be blown away.

That doesn't really work if the new Senate is majority Republican.

Indeed - that depends on what I was getting at, namely convincing the voters that the Republicans in the Senate are neglecting their duties and shouldn't be voted back in.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Doesn't work when the constituents are either unaware of the problem or think that the obstructionism is laudable.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Doesn't work when the constituents are either unaware of the problem or think that the obstructionism is laudable.

This is why I said up-thread that they are going to stonewall on this all year. Then if the Dems win the election, they will just continue stonewalling. They have no reason not to; their base loves this crap.

I think Obama's going to have to make a recess appointment in December/January unless Congress deliberately stays in session to prevent it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is why I said up-thread that they are going to stonewall on this all year. Then if the Dems win the election, they will just continue stonewalling. They have no reason not to; their base loves this crap.

I think Obama's going to have to make a recess appointment in December/January unless Congress deliberately stays in session to prevent it.

He could make a recess appointment right now... I think he has until Feb 22 to pull the trigger.

I think he should just make the recess appointment and let the fight begin... let's get this show on the road. It's not like the Republicans are even pretending that they would give his nominee a hearing. They have said straight-out that they aren't going to do it. Trying to "embarrass" them into submission seems like a boondoggle. Just recess-appoint somebody qualified, then they are forced to actually vote the nominee out, or sue the President to invalidate the recess appointment... either of which will be just as "embarrassing" but at least then a Justice is actually put in place.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Didn't realize they are still on recess. Yeah he should just do it now because they will not ever confirm another SCOTUS appointment. They've already declared it DOA so why not?

I honestly think he's holding back to prevent blow-back on Hillary but I think the stakes are too high to pass on this.

 

[Flying Pig]

Doesn't work when the constituents are either unaware of the problem or think that the obstructionism is laudable.

Indeed. I have to admit, it sometimes seems that US politics has more of these situations, where things just stop working because the different parties are gaming the system, than British politics. I suspect that's a necessary evil you have to take with the whole idea of limited executive power.

 

[metalhead]

I'd argue the system was pretty much designed this way. The country isn't 1/10th as divided now as it was back then; the constitution was basically the product of a compromise over slavery. The Southern colonies were not going to ratify any document that limited slavery, and the Northern colonies were adamant that at the very least, the transatlantic slave trade had to go. It was a delicate balance that I'm sure the framers knew would lead to, well, a civil war were it ever to be upset. So inertia is to be preferred over all other states of being, so that order can be maintained.

 

[Antilogic]

It's not the party system that's the problem, it's the two-corporate-friendly-party system that's the problem.

Party systems come and go. We are on the 6th, and as you could probably guess from other posts, I think we are evolving to a 7th sometime soon.

And even though we know exactly where that happens because it has been happening there for decades, we need to take away an extremely effective tool for maintaining whatever tatters of the franchise are left for the people thusly targeted for disenfranchisement. Thanks, Supreme Court!

Another terrible decision Scalia was on. Didn't he use the phrase "perpetuation of racial entitlement" in the argument? Like, guaranteed access to a ballot box is privilege that mommy and daddy can take away?

Indeed - that depends on what I was getting at, namely convincing the voters that the Republicans in the Senate are neglecting their duties and shouldn't be voted back in.

As Cutlass and others have noted, the short answer is no. The executive has no means to force a vote in the legislature to appoint a member of the judiciary besides shaming. And the American political process is becoming immune to that.

He could make a recess appointment right now... I think he has until Feb 22 to pull the trigger.

I think he should just make the recess appointment and let the fight begin... let's get this show on the road. It's not like the Republicans are even pretending that they would give his nominee a hearing. They have said straight-out that they aren't going to do it. Trying to "embarrass" them into submission seems like a boondoggle. Just recess-appoint somebody qualified, then they are forced to actually vote the nominee out, or sue the President to invalidate the recess appointment... either of which will be just as "embarrassing" but at least then a Justice is actually put in place.

Didn't realize they are still on recess. Yeah he should just do it now because they will not ever confirm another SCOTUS appointment. They've already declared it DOA so why not?

I honestly think he's holding back to prevent blow-back on Hillary but I think the stakes are too high to pass on this.

If he's considering this route, he might as well roll the dice and appoint an iron liberal to the bench. He's going to be called a tyrant no matter who he appoints. And he should act on it now, I'm certain the Senate will find one guy to gavel the session in on from here on out. There will not be another recess for him to try.