james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2016-02-13 08:27 pm
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2016-02-13 08:27 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If the Dems win the White House, I don't see Republicans holding control of the Senate. If they have the Vice President, the Dems only need to pick up four seats to take control (five if Sanders wins), which is entirely doable in a Presidential year.
But even if the Republicans retain control of the Senate while losing the White House, I don't think the Justices would sit quietly if half the Court goes empty. That would nearly double the remaining Justices' workload as they have to write more opinions and supervise more Circuit Courts. No matter how ideological they are (and remember, most of them try not to be openly), at some point they'll start demanding that Congress do its duty and confirm a qualified candidate.
But even if the Republicans retain control of the Senate while losing the White House, I don't think the Justices would sit quietly if half the Court goes empty. That would nearly double the remaining Justices' workload as they have to write more opinions and supervise more Circuit Courts. No matter how ideological they are (and remember, most of them try not to be openly), at some point they'll start demanding that Congress do its duty and confirm a qualified candidate.
One hates to gloat over the dead, except in this case, one doesn't hate it half as much as one should.
The WashPost noted today that by opposing an Obama nominee unreservedly, the Senate republicans have shot themselves in the foot; the state appeals courts mostly lean liberal, and a split supreme court ruling leaves the appeal court ruling that was escalated to them in place, so for the most part a slew of liberal state-level verdicts will be upheld.
Personally I think the best outcome is for them to stonewall angrily ... until Hilary's inauguration, at which point HRC can nominate Barack H. Obama to the Supreme Court. There's precedent: he's a noted constitutional scholar, and wouldn't be the first President to end up there ...
Personally I think the best outcome is for them to stonewall angrily ... until Hilary's inauguration, at which point HRC can nominate Barack H. Obama to the Supreme Court. There's precedent: he's a noted constitutional scholar, and wouldn't be the first President to end up there ...
Yes, I'm sure the Koch Brothers and Focus on the Family are heartbroken.
Oh, that's good.
Except that forcing a woman to work with her harasser is kind of not so awesome.
Except that forcing a woman to work with her harasser is kind of not so awesome.
Also, with any case that stalls at 4-4, the lower court decision stands without setting precedent. About 2/3 of the country is governed by courts that are majority Democrats, so policy-wise, it is bad for the GOP to leave a vacancy for too long. There are several cases pending right now where the GOP was counting on the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings.
That's the rub--influence. Scalia was highly intelligent, extremely well-written, and had an exceptional legal mind. (Just because he used those gifts for evil doesn't mean they weren't there.) I am sure that he was able to pull the other conservative justices even more to the right than they would be naturally, and now that force is gone. He was also an incredibly aggressive questioner during oral arguments, so that process will likely be very different in future cases. Scalia's death affects A LOT more than the likely vote split.
Vox and Roosh declare they don't accept nominations from gamma males.
He has no judicial experience or even a law degree, which makes him even less experienced than Harriet Meiers, whose nomination was laughed out of the Senate by Republicans and Democrats alike. Coates would have no chance at confirmation, and rightly so because appointing someone solely for their views and not experience is precisely what the confirmation process is supposed to stop.
Right now the smart money seems to be pooling on Sri Srinivasan -- he's a moderate who was approved to the DC Circuit by unanimous vote, making it likely that the more principled Republicans in the Senate would break with the hardliners on the issue.
Right now the smart money seems to be pooling on Sri Srinivasan -- he's a moderate who was approved to the DC Circuit by unanimous vote, making it likely that the more principled Republicans in the Senate would break with the hardliners on the issue.
But if Breyer or Ginsburg retire, the court goes to three liberals, three conservatives, and Kennedy as a swing vote, which is functionally the same as what it was last week. If Ginsburg and Breyer retire, it becomes three conservatives, two liberals and Kennedy occasionally creating a tie. And if Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy all retire, it goes to a straight 3/2 conservative majority.
If there's a serious chance of getting someone passed, absolutely.
If the republicans wouldn't pass Moses returned in glory and Harvard Law tenure, it might be time to go a bit political on them.
If the republicans wouldn't pass Moses returned in glory and Harvard Law tenure, it might be time to go a bit political on them.
The best way to get political about it is to put forward a choice that, if rejected, makes it very clear that they are refusing to do their job as senators--then draw attention to this during the campaign. There are Senate elections this fall, too.
Wait, well written? He's not fictional.
I don't know, it might have been more symbolic for a lot of couples if he'd waited one more day.
Those rules are evaporating because one party is dying. Did you think the Coalition was going to go gentle into that good night? Hell no. Not the sons and daughters of the Borderers.
Honestly, if it had happened t him a couple weeks ago, it would be better for the environment.
Edited 2016-02-14 23:20 (UTC)
I won't say I was celebrating last night, but I WAS drinking a lot of "Scalzi's Tears":
Scalzi's Tears (Courtesy of KathrynT on Metaflter
2 ounces rye whiskey
1/4 ounce Fernet Branca
1/4 ounce Grand Marnier or Cointreau
A few splashes of water or soda
Serve on the rocks, garnished with a miniature rainbow flag
It's a bitter, Italian Old Fashioned made with sweet, spicy American whiskey.
Scalzi's Tears (Courtesy of KathrynT on Metaflter
2 ounces rye whiskey
1/4 ounce Fernet Branca
1/4 ounce Grand Marnier or Cointreau
A few splashes of water or soda
Serve on the rocks, garnished with a miniature rainbow flag
It's a bitter, Italian Old Fashioned made with sweet, spicy American whiskey.
Edited 2016-02-14 23:20 (UTC)
Valentine's Day and Scalia being against gay marriage, I think.
Ooh, quite; forgot he's still on the bench.
-- Steve felt it was from another era, and kinda almost is.
-- Steve felt it was from another era, and kinda almost is.
The gloating is not for the fact that he's dead, but rather for the fact that he cannot do any more damage. He wanted to make me and people like me illegal (even though I don't live in his country) and that made him my bitterest enemy, which is deeply depressing when his hatred was so completely impersonal.
That kind of nonsense I have no need of, and its absence is what I celebrate.
That kind of nonsense I have no need of, and its absence is what I celebrate.
If my sarcasm tags were too well hidden, I'm with you.
The fact that Sri was approved unanimously is a political point. Republican senators could expect their next re-election campaigns to feature accusations of flip-flopping for voting to approve the guy in 2013 and then shit-talking him in 2016.
Page 3 of 4