Justice Scalia Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
An observation from Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog:

"Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance. To take just one example, Ted Cruz is exactly right to say that a more liberal replacement for Justice Scalia is very likely to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of a Second Amendment right to possess firearms or at least render it a nullity as a practical matter. There are dozens of other examples. Conversely, a Republican appointee would not only preserve those victories but continue the Court’s steady move to the right."

Thanks to JRH6856 for pointing out that link! Lots of other good analysis there as well.
 
Last edited:
I find it disgusting that "conservatives" (most of the self-proclaimed conservatives are anything but) who defend the Constitution like a rabid dog are so quick to deny the President his Constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...


The president has a Constitutional right to nominate and appointee.

The senate has a Constitutional right to deny confirmation.

The senate majority leader also has a Constitutional right to follow the lead or Harry Reid for the last 7 years, and simply exclude it from the agenda not bring it up for a vote.

If one side plays by the rules of tradition, and confirms a president's appointees unless there are extremely compelling reasons not to, and the other side refuses all appointees that have political differences, guess who controls the court? Time for the spinless republicans to play hardball and use their Constitutional authority like Democrats have aways done. Elections have consequences. We'd like to see some.
 
THE BEST POSITIVE THING ABOUT REPLACEMENTING JUSTICE SCALIA


The best thing is it is making the candidates go on record about the type of Justices they will nominate to the Court.

Trump remains a huge unknown candidate due to never held a elected office. Without a track record there is good reason to mistrust him. Of course we have been burnt enough times by other candidates that have abandoned there positions and the voters once they get in power so what is the difference?

Trumps comment about his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice has abortion foes howling. Certainly Cruz and others are going to use this to prove Trump is a Democratic Liberal.

I tend to view it as just bragging on family members.

Trump so far has made strong pledges to support the 2A. He is going to have many chances to make it clear who he thinks will make a good Court Jusiice.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
 
BSA1 said:
THE BEST POSITIVE THING ABOUT REPLACEMENTING JUSTICE SCALIA


The best thing is it is making the candidates go on record about the type of Justices they will nominate to the Court.

Trump remains a huge unknown candidate due to never held a elected office. Without a track record there is good reason to mistrust him. Of course we have been burnt enough times by other candidates that have abandoned there positions and the voters once they get in power so what is the difference?

Trumps comment about his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice has abortion foes howling. Certainly Cruz and others are going to use this to prove Trump is a Democratic Liberal.

I tend to view it as just bragging on family members.

Trump so far has made strong pledges to support the 2A. He is going to have many chances to make it clear who he thinks will make a good Court Jusiice.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
Click to expand...
Without turning this more political than it is, hopefully the SC vacancy will cast some light on how important this election is (assuming the Senate can block a nomination this year) and we can dispense with the chest beating candidates and focus more on the ones who really can win to help with RKBA issues.

I don't think for one minute that the SC would review past cases and reverse rulings. Heller isn't going anywhere just like Rowe v. Wade didn't go anywhere when there were 5 conservative justices. This nomination is important though. The balance of power depends on it for whatever future cases come before the court.
 
Why can't they?

"During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush."

Well, I'm sure the Democrats know what payback is?
 
I said this elsewhere earlier today:

The 2A is not going to be lost over who is elected president. it will be lost when gun owners get complacent and think any politician is out there protecting their RTKBA. Even if the spineless Rs in the senate cave and confirm a radical leftist to the SCOTUS, all is not lost. Most gun laws that matter are at the state level and we are winning there.
Click to expand...

There is no stomach at the federal level for any more gun laws.

There is little or no stomach for them at the state level even in gun unfriendly places like NY.

We have to band together and make it so unpleasant for the politicians that they are terrified to even consider new antigun legislation.
 
Crawdad1 said:
Why can't they?

"During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush."

Well, I'm sure the Democrats know what payback is?
Click to expand...
Where is this quoted from?

There is no stomach at the federal level for any more gun laws.

There is little or no stomach for them at the state level even in gun unfriendly places like NY.

We have to band together and make it so unpleasant for the politicians that they are terrified to even consider new antigun legislation.
Click to expand...

A. That can change in the blink of an eye.
B. The issues isn't so much new laws (atlas at the moment) but in interpretation of existing ones and in who gets to decide what reasonable is.
 
There is no stomach at the federal level for any more gun laws.
Click to expand...

While they are not in the majority, there are several "stomachs" on the federal level ready for more gun laws, and the courts have been the primary method for the minority to inflict damage on the majority. There are also many anti-2A's out there in congress who have to pretend to support 2A rights to get elected in their home state or district. (such as Bernie) They would love and anti-2A court to inflict their damage without having to put their fingerprints on it, while they pretend to be outraged.
 
Can Obama even nominate/appoint a SC Justice without violating Senate Resolution 334?
Click to expand...

That resolution is not even binding on the Senate, let alone President. In terms of legislative effect, it is the equivalent of the general opinion of the Senate circa 1960.
 
steve4102 said:
Can Obama even nominate/appoint a SC Justice without violating Senate Resolution 334?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
Click to expand...
First, that resolution has no legal bearing on anything. It amounts to an opinion of the Senate majority at the time (Democrats), after Eisenhower (Republican) had performed 3 recess appointments to the Supreme Court.

A recess appointment is when the Senate is not in session, but there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court, and the president then appoints someone. When this resolution passed, the Democrats felt such a step (using a recess appointment) should only be taken in extreme circumstances, whereas the Republicans felt "that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times." (from the link you provided). So...how about that, huh.

There have been no recess appointments to the Supreme Court since this resolution, whether by purpose or by coincidence.

Obama has ruled out using a recess appointment to replace Justice Scalia.

Perhaps the prevailing sentiment became that such an appointment was no longer politically wise? Given that, eventually, the Senate must still confirm the appointment, the temporary appointment is probably not worth the potential backfire by public opinion and the political fallout from a failed nominee.

Traditionally, Supreme Court nominees that are going to fail to be approved by the Senate have their appointment withdrawn, rather than face a failed vote. See Harriet Miers.
 
Last edited:
barnbwt said:
The reason the jurists only seem to stray one direction is because the game is rigged. Surprising, I know.
Click to expand...

You make some interesting observations. If the game is really rigged. then we are in big trouble in River City. However, I don't necessarily agree. Time will tell.
 
Crawdad1 said:
Why can't they?

"During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush."

Well, I'm sure the Democrats know what payback is?
Click to expand...
Schumer was speaking to a hypothetical situation. He also wasn't the Senate Majority Leader when he said what he said.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of "payback" you're talking about, as what Schumer said never amounted to an actual showdown between the president and the senate.

You can call Schumer a hypocrite, but he was speaking in hypotheticals, whereas McConnell was referring directly to an expected appointment to replace an SC Justice who had just died THAT DAY.

I fail to see why he had to bother immediately commenting like that. Oh well. I think a more appropriate response from the Senate Majority Leader would have been about honoring the conservative legacy that Scalia held on the court, and stating that the Senate is ready, once back in session, to fulfill their responsibility in the appointment process. End of story. Save the strategy for the back rooms.
 
A senior Senator from New York speaking in hypotheticals? Sounds like someone is bending over backwards to come up with an excuse, although feeble, for his statement and or threat.

Democratic held Senates in the passed have taken an extraordinarily long time confirming or not confirming Justices that didn't agree with their 'philosophy' its about time that the Republican held Senate does the same. That's their only responsibility.
 
Loretta Lynch has come up a lot. Three reasons they are saying she'd be a good choice:

- One is that she was recently vetted for attorney general.

- Two is that she's black.

- Three is she's a woman.




http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia




SCOTUS analyst: Loretta Lynch ‘most likely candidate’ to replace Scalia

02/15/16 12:36 PM—UPDATED 02/15/16 02:33 PM

By Corky Siemaszko

A leading Supreme Court analyst thinks Attorney General Loretta Lynch is the “most likely candidate” to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Tom Goldstein, who runs the influential SCOTUSblog, had earlier predicted Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would make the top of President Obama’s short list. But in a revised blog post, Goldstein said he now believes Lynch is the leading contender.

Lynch is a “very serious possibility,” Goldstein wrote. “The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order.
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdad1
Why can't they?

"During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush."

Well, I'm sure the Democrats know what payback is?
Click to expand...
Where is this quoted from?
Click to expand...
Try this:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ld-not-confirm-any-bush-nominee-supreme-court
Watch the video. As we all know, Schumer is a bomb thrower.
 
Yeah, no matter who Obama nominates, they will not be confirmed, politics notwithstanding. It won't happen. Take that to Vegas.
He needs 60 votes. He'll never get close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Pro-Second Amendment Justices?
Replies
1
Views
276
green-grizzly
G
C
  • Locked
Heller: Plurality option?
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
K
  • Locked
Clinton on the Supreme Court?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
Justice Scalia: Guns Not Just for Crime
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sergeant Bob
S
C
  • Locked
Will Bush Appoint 2nd Amend. Supreme Court Justices?
Replies
14
Views
513
Brett Bellmore
B
Back
Top