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}
That exact same clip is in half the posts on my friends page.
Be interesting to see what sort of appointment to the court the Republican majorities in Congress express a willingness to accept. I doubt Congress is going to accept any nomination but someone who makes Scalia look like a moderate.
I'm not sure how you could find such a person, but as I recall American Supreme Court justices don't have to be judges or lawyers or anything prior to their appointment. Obama could in principle nominate Beyoncé. I might be tempted to try that in his place, just to see how many members of congress are carried off by aneurysms.
I'm not sure how you could find such a person, but as I recall American Supreme Court justices don't have to be judges or lawyers or anything prior to their appointment. Obama could in principle nominate Beyoncé. I might be tempted to try that in his place, just to see how many members of congress are carried off by aneurysms.
Yeah, that's been making the rounds since the obituary went out...
If the Republicans delay enough, perhaps President Clinton can appoint Obama.
I suppose either Mrs. Knowles-Carter or Mr. Moore would be sufficient to trigger more than a few cerebral hemorrhages.
Well, they only last until the end of the next Senate session if not confirmed. I don't understand what a "Senate Session" means, really: 114th Congress indicate a fairly long time period, and the article said "no more than two years" but the Senate opens and closes for business all the time. Can someone enlighten me?
Edited 2016-02-14 02:25 (UTC)
She's gone on record saying she'd do as much, I believe.
Sixty-something white guy, no?
You want someone in their forties or fifties, traditionally, so they can have a lasting influence. You totally don't want to appoint any men until there are at least five women on the court.
I'm sure Obama can think of a learned black woman or six with a prestigious law degree and no older than mid-forties, but I can also imagine wanting to gift the Republicans with an opportunity for election year PR suicide.
You want someone in their forties or fifties, traditionally, so they can have a lasting influence. You totally don't want to appoint any men until there are at least five women on the court.
I'm sure Obama can think of a learned black woman or six with a prestigious law degree and no older than mid-forties, but I can also imagine wanting to gift the Republicans with an opportunity for election year PR suicide.
Cruz and Rubio are already calling for Obama to leave the seat vacant and let the next President fill it (even though that would be the longest vacancy in court history by more than a 100% margin -- but then Cruz has already shown that he doesn't care about keeping the government functioning).
True, but we're talking cerebral hemorrhages here, not practicality. :)
On both sides of the political aisle!
May he rest in peace. My sympathies to his family and friends.
That's the best I can do, sorry.
That's the best I can do, sorry.
Mitch McConnell has already stated the answer is "nobody". He's going to try to block all votes on a replacement for the remainder of Obama's term, because "the American people should have a say" in the nomination.
In other words, he's pretty much implying that Obama is not the legitimate President.
Meanwhile, Obama just made a brief announcement that he will make an appointment and expects them to do their jobs as well.
And the Very Serious Republican consensus seems to be gathering that Obama should hold off nominating anybody, for the sake of bipartisanship and healing and the good of the country and yadda yadda.
I'm sitting here trying to decide if, should a Democrat win in November, they'll try to keep the seat vacant until 2021. If they keep going and Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer dies, they get a 4-3 majority back.
In other words, he's pretty much implying that Obama is not the legitimate President.
Meanwhile, Obama just made a brief announcement that he will make an appointment and expects them to do their jobs as well.
And the Very Serious Republican consensus seems to be gathering that Obama should hold off nominating anybody, for the sake of bipartisanship and healing and the good of the country and yadda yadda.
I'm sitting here trying to decide if, should a Democrat win in November, they'll try to keep the seat vacant until 2021. If they keep going and Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer dies, they get a 4-3 majority back.
Thanks to blatantly bullshit procedural nonsense by the Republicans, the Senate no longer goes into recess.
I'd consider appointing a reasonable moderate in their sixties, and getting them confirmed, a big win. Having a functional Supreme Court with five votes for "not crazy" would be a huge improvement over the last couple of decades.
I think it's very likely that the Democrats will win the next 2-3 presidential elections, which means we'll get more chances to replace arch-conservatives, against what will probably be less strident opposition. And if President Warren in 2027 gets to replace Obama appointee Moderate McOldiepants, well, I'll be pretty content with that outcome.
I think it's very likely that the Democrats will win the next 2-3 presidential elections, which means we'll get more chances to replace arch-conservatives, against what will probably be less strident opposition. And if President Warren in 2027 gets to replace Obama appointee Moderate McOldiepants, well, I'll be pretty content with that outcome.
I think the GOP is totally screwed on this one. If they become so obstructionist that the vacancy stays open until the election, they will push a lot of independents towards the Dems. , both in the presidential race and down ticket. There are 24 Republican Senators up for re-election this year, and only 10 Democrats. If they don't, they will piss off a lot of their base, which could result in a lower turnout for the GOP.
Things are going to get weird with some of the cases before the court right now, but Scalia's death is a boon for the Dems in the November election.
Things are going to get weird with some of the cases before the court right now, but Scalia's death is a boon for the Dems in the November election.
Breyer, Ginsburg and Kennedy are all likely to leave the bench one way or another in the next four years, which means that whoever wins the next election will get to shift ideology of the court firmly in one direction or the other regardless of who replaces Scalia.
The scenarios:
1) Obama gets a liberal on the court, Republicans win the election. By 2020 the court will be split two-thirds conservative.
2) Obama gets a liberal on the court, Democrats win the election. By 2020 the court will be split two-thirds liberal.
3) The Senate blocks all Obama nominees, the Republicans win the election. By 2020 the court will be split 7/9 conservative.
4) The Senate blocks all Obama nominees, the Democrats win the election. By 2020 the Court will be split two-thirds liberal.
So if the Republicans were really interested in "fairness" or whatever bullshit McConnell's pushing, they'd approve whoever Obama nominates and let the next President tilt the court two-thirds one way or the other. Instead they're aiming for option (3), which would give them an overwhelming majority that couldn't be swayed even if one or two of their nominees turn into the second coming of Anthony Kennedy.
The scenarios:
1) Obama gets a liberal on the court, Republicans win the election. By 2020 the court will be split two-thirds conservative.
2) Obama gets a liberal on the court, Democrats win the election. By 2020 the court will be split two-thirds liberal.
3) The Senate blocks all Obama nominees, the Republicans win the election. By 2020 the court will be split 7/9 conservative.
4) The Senate blocks all Obama nominees, the Democrats win the election. By 2020 the Court will be split two-thirds liberal.
So if the Republicans were really interested in "fairness" or whatever bullshit McConnell's pushing, they'd approve whoever Obama nominates and let the next President tilt the court two-thirds one way or the other. Instead they're aiming for option (3), which would give them an overwhelming majority that couldn't be swayed even if one or two of their nominees turn into the second coming of Anthony Kennedy.
True story, there was just a Supreme Court case in 2014 on the limits of recess appointments. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
Anyway, a session of congress is not just the daily meeting. The formal session is the time that the congress is "open for business" and considering laws etc. The session ends when congress has decided that no more work is to be done, and adjourns "sine die" ("without a date") meaning they don't intend to meet again that year. Of course, they can change their mind, or the president can change it for them and summon a special session. But in general, a modern session of congress lasts basically all year, partially so they can prevent effective recess appointments. The 113th Congress (2013-2015) had its first session from Jan 3rd 2013, to Jan 3rd 2014, and that same day began it's second session: Jan 3rd 2014 to Jan 2nd 2015, at which point it was time to swear in the 114th Congress which began its first session on Jan 6th 2015. So Obama had less than a week to enjoy recess appointments... although any appointments he made in those handful of days would be in place for the next year, as a consequence of Congress's unwillingness to adjourn the session.
For recent congressional session dates, see http://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/110-Current/
Anyway, a session of congress is not just the daily meeting. The formal session is the time that the congress is "open for business" and considering laws etc. The session ends when congress has decided that no more work is to be done, and adjourns "sine die" ("without a date") meaning they don't intend to meet again that year. Of course, they can change their mind, or the president can change it for them and summon a special session. But in general, a modern session of congress lasts basically all year, partially so they can prevent effective recess appointments. The 113th Congress (2013-2015) had its first session from Jan 3rd 2013, to Jan 3rd 2014, and that same day began it's second session: Jan 3rd 2014 to Jan 2nd 2015, at which point it was time to swear in the 114th Congress which began its first session on Jan 6th 2015. So Obama had less than a week to enjoy recess appointments... although any appointments he made in those handful of days would be in place for the next year, as a consequence of Congress's unwillingness to adjourn the session.
For recent congressional session dates, see http://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/110-Current/
One suggestion going around is Bush appointee John E. Jones III. He may have been put on the bench by Bush the Younger, but is now better known for Kitzmiller v. Dover[1] and Whitewood v. Wolf[2].
[1] Teaching "intelligent design" is the same as teaching creationism, and as such violates the Establishment clause.
[2] Striking down Pennsylvania's ban on same sex marriage.
[1] Teaching "intelligent design" is the same as teaching creationism, and as such violates the Establishment clause.
[2] Striking down Pennsylvania's ban on same sex marriage.
That seems unlikely. Presidential candidates don't generally bind themselves in such a way.
Page 1 of 4