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

Won't there be another recess at the end of the year? Or do you mean that by then, they will be ready to gavel in a session to prevent the appointment?
 
Won't there be another recess at the end of the year? Or do you mean that by then, they will be ready to gavel in a session to prevent the appointment?

I mean they will, once per day, send up a single GOP senator to gavel in a pro forma session so they can claim they aren't on recess, and use that to block any recess appointments. I think it came up before with appointments to the NLRB back in 2013 and 2014.
 
So looks like that seat will be vacant for the next 5 years, assuming Hillary wins the election. Yeah :sad:
 
I'm not so sure that won't be a wash as it would rile up the Republican base too. And a lot of the Democratic base is young and I just don't see them getting fired up about a SCOTUS appointment the way they do get riled up about 'transformational' presidents. Could be wrong though. It just seems people my age and younger get excited about things like a black president/female president/socialist president than they do about the prospect of a SCOTUS appointment. Whereas for Republicans who see this as the best way to outlaw teh gayz and smishmortion, it's a pretty big deal and riles them up.
 
It just doesn't seem smart from any angle as having a SC seat dependent on who wins an election would be the #1 way to get reluctant democrats to the polling booths
There are excellent reasons to suspect that this is not true.
 
So looks like that seat will be vacant for the next 5 years, assuming Hillary wins the election. Yeah :sad:

Gotta work the long game.

For the next most of a year we have Republicans chanting "Wait for the next president! Let the people have their say!" The people are divided into three groups. People who are just pure Republicans, people who see some sort of sense in this, and people who see this as just plain obstructionism. So the next president is a Democrat...that is a very high probability. The obstructionism helps democrats in senate races...that is a very high probability. If it helps enough, problem solved, but that isn't a high probability, and there will certainly be enough Republicans to continue stonewalling by filibuster, if nothing else.

So, two more years, and now the people still have the just plain Republicans group and the group that sees outright obstructionism. But that group that saw some sort of sense in "wait for the next president, let the people have their say" now has a vastly different point to look from, in that the people who were saying "wait" are suddenly saying "oh, we meant wait for the next REPUBLICAN president and we don't give a damn WHAT the people said."

That makes the next midterm election a very dicey prospect for the Republicans, so I doubt they would be so stupid as to stonewall for two additional years. We can hope though, since their penchant for destroying themselves is starting to run rampant.
 
Gotta work the long game.

For the next most of a year we have Republicans chanting "Wait for the next president! Let the people have their say!" The people are divided into three groups. People who are just pure Republicans, people who see some sort of sense in this, and people who see this as just plain obstructionism. So the next president is a Democrat...that is a very high probability. The obstructionism helps democrats in senate races...that is a very high probability. If it helps enough, problem solved, but that isn't a high probability, and there will certainly be enough Republicans to continue stonewalling by filibuster, if nothing else.

So, two more years, and now the people still have the just plain Republicans group and the group that sees outright obstructionism. But that group that saw some sort of sense in "wait for the next president, let the people have their say" now has a vastly different point to look from, in that the people who were saying "wait" are suddenly saying "oh, we meant wait for the next REPUBLICAN president and we don't give a damn WHAT the people said."

That makes the next midterm election a very dicey prospect for the Republicans, so I doubt they would be so stupid as to stonewall for two additional years. We can hope though, since their penchant for destroying themselves is starting to run rampant.
The best way for Prez Obama and the Democrats to work the long game is for Prez Obama to recess appoint a SCOTUS Justice, and then all the Democrats rally behind:

"Let the people have their say! Wait until the NEW SENATE is sworn in to hold the confirmation hearings. If the new Senate votes the Justice out, then the new Prez can nominate someone else." Everybody gets what they want. Prez gets to appoint, the current Senate gets to refuse to confirm, and "the people get their say"...

Win, win, win.
 
The best way for Prez Obama and the Democrats to work the long game is for Prez Obama to recess appoint a SCOTUS Justice, and then all the Democrats rally behind:

"Let the people have their say! Wait until the NEW SENATE is sworn in to hold the confirmation hearings. If the new Senate votes the Justice out, then the new Prez can nominate someone else." Everybody gets what they want. Prez gets to appoint, the current Senate gets to refuse to confirm, and "the people get their say"...

Win, win, win.

Except that we both know that would play directly into the "out of control madman overusing executive privilege" narrative. The objective is to strengthen the "obstructionist Republican" narrative, not help them out.
 
Except that we both know that would play directly into the "out of control madman overusing executive privilege" narrative. The objective is to strengthen the "obstructionist Republican" narrative, not help them out.
Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...

I'd just as soon go ahead and get the SCOTUS Justice in place. To me that actually puts more pressure on the Republicans to actually hold confirmation hearings, since crossing their arms and holding their breath will just result in Prez Obama's appointee staying in office.
 
So looks like that seat will be vacant for the next 5 years, assuming Hillary wins the election. Yeah :sad:

I mean, odds are you won't have a Democratic supermajority Senate and president, so theoretically they could keep up the filibuster, but I can't imagine a Senate intentionally leaving a high profile Supreme Court for that long.

Then again, most political rules seem to be bent or broken now, so they might roll the dice on it.

There are excellent reasons to suspect that this is not true.

Agreed. Anytime somebody says it's going to be an election dominated by something besides domestic, mostly economic issues... I'll believe it when I see it.

Gotta work the long game.

Speaking of the long game, it's been quite awhile since the post-Civil Rights conservative consensus has had to deal with a liberal court. Earl Warren retired in 1969, right after the mess with Abe Fortas insured he would be replaced with a Nixon appointee. Since then, the Court has taken a fairly conservative path.

Now, if Obama could get a solid center-left justice, the transition would be stark and immediate. But even with a moderate candidate and, say, a Democratic presidency that replaces either Clarence Thomas or Anthony Kennedy with center-lefties and holds Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat, the transition would still occur.

Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...

I'd just as soon go ahead and get the SCOTUS Justice in place. To me that actually puts more pressure on the Republicans to actually hold confirmation hearings, since crossing their arms and holding their breath will just result in Prez Obama's appointee staying in office.

Exactly. It's not like the GOP hardliners are suddenly going to turn around and start praising Obama for restraint when they've been whipping up a storm against him for years.
 
Meh, they're gonna say that anyway... and Republicans believe it no matter what he does or does not do...

Notice that I did not suggest anywhere that the "just plain Republicans" group was subject to change. The "well, maybe waiting makes sense and isn't just obstructionist" group is the group that is subject to influence...either way.
 
Notice that I did not suggest anywhere that the "just plain Republicans" group was subject to change. The "well, maybe waiting makes sense and isn't just obstructionist" group is the group that is subject to influence...either way.
You did specify that, and I agree with you. But I'm not sure that the "let the people have their say makes sense" group is going to then forget about all the other reasons they are Republican and become Democrats just because the Republicans get exposed as being pure obstructionist on the SCOTUS issue.

In fact they may just adopt the new spin... which will be "The people had their say and saw fit to let Republicans keep their Senate majority (or filibuster-able +40), so clearly the people don't want a Democratic nominated SCOTUS Justice, so the obstruction will continue."
 
Yeah, it really doesn't take very much to justify assbaffoonery if you believe your side is 100% correct, 100% of the time. They already justify and actively support the obstructionism, no need to stop until they start losing lots of elections.
 
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.


The majority of American history has not been like this. While it has occurred before, what we're seeing now is definitely out of the ordinary.
 
You did specify that, and I agree with you. But I'm not sure that the "let the people have their say makes sense" group is going to then forget about all the other reasons they are Republican and become Democrats just because the Republicans get exposed as being pure obstructionist on the SCOTUS issue.

In fact they may just adopt the new spin... which will be "The people had their say and saw fit to let Republicans keep their Senate majority (or filibuster-able +40), so clearly the people don't want a Democratic nominated SCOTUS Justice, so the obstruction will continue."

The only people who matter are the people right on the line. But when you get down to it the people right on the line are the ones who make it critical to always push the line your way, even if it is just by an inch. I think this is a good opportunity to push the line towards "obstructionist, party over country, period" by at the very least a few people and maybe a good chunk.
 
I'd like to see a recess appointment to force their hand.
 
I don't understand why an originalist like Ted Cruz is spouting a so-called precedent going only back to the New Deal Era. Why not examine what happened when there were Supreme Court vacancies during 1796?
 
Fair weather constitutionalists.
 
Back
Top Bottom