Justice Scalia Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
News says Obama says he will nominate and it will probably be a judge of Indian descent from the Washington circuit. Didn't catch the name.

He was confirmed to the circuit 97/3, so it would be hard not to confirm.
 
Eh, what was Bork's confirmation vote to the D.C. Circuit? Didn't seem to stop him from being rejected as Reagan's lame duck appointment.

Edited to correct my bad timeline. Bork was rejected in October 1987, not 1988. Douglas Ginsburg (the next nominee) then withdrew his nomination because he had admitted to usung marijuana. Antonin Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 and eventually confirmed on February 18, 1988.
 
Last edited:
This is the kind of reason why I think it a bad idea right now to try bringing any new gun rights cases before the SCOTUS. Because too much hangs on just one justice.

That said, let's say worse-case scenario happens and a super liberal gets appointed. So how are gun rights affected? Do they just mean we won't get the chance to try any new gun cases and thus the status quo remains right now with liberal states passing whatever gun control they seem to want? Or could liberals try bringing some type of case before the Court to allow for gun control and/or overturn Heller?
 
rickyrick said:
No worries they all swear to uphold the constitution
Click to expand...
And they do -- they uphold it as they interpret it. As a certain former President once famously said, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The Senate Majority Leader has already expressed his opinion that the next President should nominate the replacement for Justice Scalia.
Click to expand...
He can express all the opinions he wants, but Barack Obama is the President of the United States for the next 10-1/2 months. Where does it say in the Constitution that a lame duck President can't perform the duties spelled out for the President in the Constitution?
 
Well, just like Reagan nominated Bork and the Senate refused the nomination, Obama can nominate his candidate and the Senate can refuse that candidate. That is perfectly within the constitutional powers of both bodies.

What happens in the court until them? Can they hear cases with 8 justices?
Click to expand...

Yes. Ties result in the lower court ruling being upheld per curiam (the opinion has no value as precedent).
 
Technically, the Court might already have been 5-4 against us for all we know, as who knows if Kennedy or Roberts would strike down an AWB? Roberts justified upholding O'care, so would he really be willing to strike down all the AWBs around the country? Still not good though.
 
Justice Scalia was nearly 80 years of age, overweight, and unfit. No conspiracy necessary.

Every administration has a short list of SCOTUS nominations, just in case a Justice dies unexpectedly, we'll see something from the White House in a few days. Obama probably reviewed the list today.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Could not the Senate Majority leader just stop a vote from ever coming up? just like Reed killed anything he didn't think Obama wanted to hit his desk?
 
Rwilson
Sen. Lee has said the chance of it getting out of committee is nil.
He has much more credibility than McConnell, so if Cruz, Lee and a few others hold fast, it never gets out of committee and to the Senate floor.
Further obama has no political horse trading capital as a low credibility lame duck so it does republican senators up for reelection little good to help him out.

But we will see.
 
Rough news for 2A rights.

I'm not a conspiracy theorists AT ALL, but the timing of this is suspect
Click to expand...
The timing of a 79 year old dying in his sleep?

I watched the calgun cases earlier this week. The female Vietnamese born judge,Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen in that case, an Obama appointee, seemed to have a fairly open mind about Volokhs presentation and cut up the states defense on several points. In fact, seemed supportive of both Calgun cases of which arguments were heard this week.

Maybe finding an Obama appointee who would be acceptable isn't hopeless.
Srinivasan has a pretty middle of the road history. He didn't seem to have much of a problem working for two Republican appointees or for Bush. Defended EXXON mobiles internal security forces when they were accused of some pretty bad stuff internationally. In that article it claims he defended an illegal immigrant set to be deported because of a minor gun offense, but in researching the issue I think it was actually a minor drug offense. There seem to be a fair number of Democrats unhappy about Obama giving him the time of day, let alone appointing him to any position. He seems to be pretty willing to bend to his employers will. On SCOTUS he won't be beholden to anyone, so I'm not sure predicting his vote is all that simple. He grew up in Lawrence Kansas with a population of 90,000. I'm guessing a fair number of the people there own guns.

I agree ten months is a long time to block a nominee with no clear objectionable history. On the face of things he is a pretty strong candidate. Obama has sure bent the rules to near breaking several times, but I'm not sure about outright rejecting any possible appointee. SCOTUS does have some important duties and being a justice short WILL cause issues.

I'm not sure how excited I am about a Supreme court justice born outside the US. Looks as though there have been six. The first three appointed before 1793, when many citizens had been born outside the US and SCOTUS was not so important. A Turk in 1889, Englishman in 1922, Austrian in 1939. That Austrian must have been a hard sell in '39. There is a good chance India will be our key Asian, and in turn global, ally over the next 50 years(if we stop selling F16s to Pakistan). There might be some international political gain out of an Indian justice on SCOTUS. Also a growing domestic voting and donating demographic, so don't think Republicans have nothing to lose blocking a legitimate Indian appointment.

This should be a doozy.
 
Last edited:
I would remind everyone that this is the Law and Civil Rights forum, and while the Supreme Court certainly is a part of that, politics are not, and if the thread goes there, it goes away.

That said, the discussion about the President not being able to make appointments seems to me to make no sense.

Congress can do as Congress does, within the law, but the idea that because he is a "lame duck" the Pres. should not nominate anyone is rather foolish.

Like him or not, until the next one is actually sworn in, he is the President, with all the legal authority thereof.

Right now, all that is real is that we need another justice. Everything else at this point is sheer speculation, and I don't really see a Law or Civil Rights issue to discuss, yet.
 
How does the nomination process work ? Not the whole thing , I have an understanding about that . What if Pres Obama nominates someone two days before he leaves office . Does the full process continue after he leaves office ?? or can the new Pres stop the process and name his or her own ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top