Justice Scalia Dead

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And I think all this paranoia about the SC taking people's guns away is exactly that -- paranoia, which seems to be the absolute worst attribute of so very, very many firearms owners.

I don't think it paranoid to point out three sitting Supreme Court Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) have written opinions where they state that the Second Amendment does not prevent the federal government from passing any regulation it likes - right up to preventing you from owning a handgun or keeping an assembled firearm in your home. A fourth Justice has no Second Amendment opinions; but was also appointed by Obama.

That leaves only four Justices who signed the Heller majority opinion and at least two of those four did not join Scalia and Thomas's dissent from cert in the recent Friedman Assault Weapon Ban case. That leaves one solid Justice (Thomas) and three maybes (Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy).

Replacing Scalia with another Sotomayor will absolutely be a huge setback for Heller - one that we could easily never recover from. During her confirmation hearings Justice Sotomayor said " "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." - then in her first Second Amendment opinion she joined Justice Breyer in arguing Heller should be overturned.

Justice Sotomayor was confirmed by a Democratic Senate with several prominent Republicans voting to confirm (including 2016 GOP candidates). If the Senate makes that kind of mistake again in replacing Scalia, regardless of whether it is Obama's nominee or some future President, we could very well not recover from that mistake.

The Senate has a duty to make sure the nominees for the Supreme Court, at a minimum, support the fundamental rights expressed in the Bill of Rights in a robust manner. I certainly hope that regardless of who nominates the next Justice, the Senate gives better attention to that duty than they have in the past.

 

[OilyPablo]

Gun owners in CA, NY, NJ, IL, HI and others including CO, OR and WA. All paranoid about losing gun rights. Because it's not really happening?

 

[HexHead]

I see two possible devastating scenarios. Wanting to fulfill his anti-gun agenda, 0bama nominates Michael Bloomberg. Or worse, appoints him as a recess appointment.

Or, 0bama nominates himself, stepping down when appointed, handing the presidency to Biden to complete his term. With Hilary on the rocks, Biden would be the front runner to get the nomination and possibly the election running as the incumbent.

 

[Mike OTDP]

The early announcements from the GOP Senators have been that they will not confirm any nomination made by Obama. We'll have to hold them to that, but I also think they know any vote would be a career-ending move.

But it makes the stakes in the Presidential election higher than any since 1980.

 

[yugorpk]

I remember when Scalia came out and said that the detainees at Guantanamo and other military prisons/jails/detention centers were not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because they were not being punished. They were just being interrogated. That totally changed my mind about what I thought was going on there. Very few people have been able to completely change my thinking on a matter just because of one utterance. I'm assuming he had that effect on a lot of people. I'd hands down call him the greatest jurist of my lifetime at least.

 

[JRH6856]

Actually, the current senate term expires 1/3/17, with Obama's term not ending until 1/20/17. That gives him 17 days to make a recess appointment on his way out the door. He will likely defer to a Democrat to make that pick if one wins in November, but no way will he defer to a republican. This all assumes that McConnell has the spine to refuse to allow a single hearing on a single nominee for the next 11 months, while also keeping the senate in session every day between now and January 3, 2017. At that point, we may be forced to live with Obama's pick, no matter how stalwart the senate might be prior to this current term ending.

Of course, he could always appoint someone today or tomorrow while the senate is in recess, but with Scalia not even interned yet, I'm not sure even Obama has the nerve for that. Holding my breath until Tuesday morning just in case.

Even better, he could actually be a statesman and nominate someone acceptable to the majority. It is is sad that this is by far the least likely outcome.

On the subject of recess appointments, the current Senate session ends on 3 Jan 2017, and Obama's term on 20 Jan, that is true, but that does not mean the Senate is in recess for 17 days. The next session of Congress begins on 4 Jan 2017.

 

[BobTheTomato]

As Scalia put it, "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

 

[mokin]

Or, 0bama nominates himself, stepping down when appointed, handing the presidency to Biden to complete his term. With Hilary on the rocks, Biden would be the front runner to get the nomination and possibly the election running as the incumbent.

OOOOOO....

That's EVIL

"Never let a crises go to waste!"

 

[DeepSouth]

No, it's just more of the do-nothing GOP Congress. Obstruct, deny, do nothnig, complain, repeat.

I don't mean it wrong, but I like a do nothing congress, because when they do manage to do something it's usually wrong, at least in my opinion. Doing nothing is better than doing wrong.

Maybe we SHOULD wait until the next POTUS is elected! Who will Donald Trump appoint to the Supreme Court? Himself? HE CAN DO TWO JOBS AT ONCE, YOU KNOW! Ryan Seacrest? Martin Shkreli? TWO SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMEN, PEOPLE!

I know -- Sarah Palin! She can quit two years into her life term so Donald can appoint another loser...

Either a Democratic president or the NEXT Democratic president is going to appoint one, two or three Supremes, folks. Let's hope it's someone with a 360-degree understanding of what the Constitution is about, what makes America great, and what our Bill of Rights says. I don't care if that person is a hunter, fisherman, trapper, crochets blankets, collects porcelain figurines or doesn't own a smart phone. Just make the best decisions for us as a country.

What?

Maybe my reading comprehension is just low today, but You lost me in there somewhere.

 

[AKElroy]

On the subject of recess appointments, the current Senate session ends on 3 Jan 2017, and Obama's term on 20 Jan, that is true, but that does not mean the Senate is in recess for 17 days. The next session of Congress begins on 4 Jan 2017.

Thank you for clarifying. This is encouraging, assuming we keep control of the upper house. Now we just have to hold our breath until the 22nd. I would like to see McConnell put them back in session tomorrow.

 

[barnbwt]

" if I were a Democrat wanting to make the argument that President Obama's nominee should not be obstructed, I don't think I'd be foolish enough to bring up Kennedy (and by implication Bork); because that is unlikely to generate a lot of sympathy."
Not to mention the much more recent nominee Bush put forth that was refused out of hand with practically no consideration (Hariet Miers, one of his advisors, rather than a sitting federal judge as is 'expected' though not actually required). It was a stupid choice* by Dubya to run that horse, but still an example of a congress refusing to even consider a presidential nominee, very much like with Bork. Turnabout is fair play IMO, especially when the stakes are so abundantly clear. Especially when Kagan skated through with qualifications not much different from Miers' just a few years later.
Blast from the past article comparing the backgrounds of Miers & Kagan

There was still an appointment to be made for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, and on October 3, 2005 Bush nominated Harriet Miers, a corporate attorney from Texas who had served as Bush's private attorney and as White House Counsel. Miers was widely perceived as unqualified for the position, and it later emerged that she had allowed her law license to lapse for a time. The nomination was immediately attacked by politicians and commentators from across the political spectrum. At Miers' request, Bush withdrew her nomination on October 27, ostensibly to avoid violating executive privilege by disclosing details of her work at the White House. Four days later, Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the seat. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58–42 on January 31, 2006.

I quoted this since the executive privilege angle is interesting. Makes me somewhat more skeptical Obama would even appoint someone as close to him as Holder, if it could mean they would be required to disclose internal legal opinions/thought processes for stuff like Fast & Furious he's successfully kept utterly silenced through executive privilege up to now. Somebody convinced Holder the scheme was legal, after all

TCB

*Maybe. There's a lot of evidence in many areas of employment which suggests that random promotions aren't particularly less effective in furthering organizational competency than those supposedly based on merit. The Peter Principle seems doubly in effect for SCOTUS appointments.

 

[Red Wind]

Another thing to keep in mind is that once on the Court, Justices are responsible to no one and often go their independent way. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how they might rule on particular cases.

That is certainly correct, as we see from Warren, Souter and Roberts in the fairly recent past.
But it always seems to be the GOP appointee Justices that stray. As pointed out by Poper, the Dems usually get what they bargained for. The left is more ideologically solid. Its been that way since Marx or even before

Hence, the disastrous past 55 years ,sliding down that ever more slippery slope.
The trend has to be reversed...if at all possible.

 

[Aim1]

We may have actually dodged a bullet by having SCOTUS deny some recent gun cases as there's a chance they'd be in the middle of this chaos.




Also, I've read names of people like Eric Holder and Amy Klobaucher as replacing Scalia. What??? When was the last time SCOTUS picked a person who's never been a judge to the highest court in the land?

 

[Poper]

So, how do you suppose the Dems would react if the Repubs insisted they abide by their own Senate Resolution 334?

“Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ction-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

Of course that would require the current senate majority to grow a backbone.

 

[DeepSouth]

Also, I've read names of people like Eric Holder and Amy Klobaucher as replacing Scalia. What??? When was the last time SCOTUS picked a person who's never been a judge to the highest court in the land?

As I understand it, August 7, 2010

 

[Crawdad1]

Even a recess appointment has restrictions.

When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and six associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.

No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts. In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances." Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.

 

[JRH6856]

Thank you for clarifying. This is encouraging, assuming we keep control of the upper house. Now we just have to hold our breath until the 22nd. I would like to see McConnell put them back in session tomorrow.

The SC decision in the NLRB case on recess appointments said that a 3-10 day recess was presumptively too short a time to justify a recess appointment. Let's hope so, because the concurrent resolution allowing the current recess states that the Minority Leader must concur with reconvening earlier than Feb 23. I seriously doubt Harry Reid will do that just to prevent a recess appointment.

 

[barnbwt]

It was also a unanimous 9-0 backhand, if I remember correctly. Shockingly, no branch of government appreciates the others trying to pull fast ones on each other so blatantly.

 

[barnbwt]

That is certainly correct, as we see from Warren, Souter and Roberts in the fairly recent past.
But it always seems to be the GOP appointee Justices that stray. As pointed out by Poper, the Dems usually get what they bargained for. The left is more ideologically solid. Its been that way since Marx or even before

No, it's that federal lawyers aspiring to be SCOTUS jurists are overwhelmingly liberal. From the large cities they hail from (often the latest in a long line of civil servants) to the doctrinaire schools, to the internships where they must suck up to the predominantly liberal office staff, to the public court arena inhabited largely by liberal civil servants & their liberal patronage politics, to the liberal mayor/governor elected by the dominant liberal urban center in the given state appointing them to a prominent position with promises of pursuing an agenda, to the point of being selected by a president as a SCOTUS nominee for historically making good on those promises. Not all career lawyers that get nominated follow this path, but a great many of our public judiciary is sourced exactly this way. In the case of Miers & Kagan, they were basically close legal advisors to the guy appointing them; while many portray it as a conflict of interest, ironically enough it probably means the president is a lot more familiar with their actual judicial philosophy than he normally would be, making it a more informed selection.

The reason the jurists only seem to stray one direction is because the game is rigged. Surprising, I know.

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

" if I were a Democrat wanting to make the argument that President Obama's nominee should not be obstructed, I don't think I'd be foolish enough to bring up Kennedy (and by implication Bork); because that is unlikely to generate a lot of sympathy."
Not to mention the much more recent nominee Bush put forth that was refused out of hand with practically no consideration (Hariet Miers, one of his advisors, rather than a sitting federal judge as is 'expected' though not actually required). It was a stupid choice* by Dubya to run that horse, but still an example of a congress refusing to even consider a presidential nominee, very much like with Bork. Turnabout is fair play IMO, especially when the stakes are so abundantly clear. Especially when Kagan skated through with qualifications not much different from Miers' just a few years later.
Blast from the past article comparing the backgrounds of Miers & Kagan


I quoted this since the executive privilege angle is interesting. Makes me somewhat more skeptical Obama would even appoint someone as close to him as Holder, if it could mean they would be required to disclose internal legal opinions/thought processes for stuff like Fast & Furious he's successfully kept utterly silenced through executive privilege up to now. Somebody convinced Holder the scheme was legal, after all

TCB

*Maybe. There's a lot of evidence in many areas of employment which suggests that random promotions aren't particularly less effective in furthering organizational competency than those supposedly based on merit. The Peter Principle seems doubly in effect for SCOTUS appointments.

I concur not holder, but a writer on SCOTUBlog makes an argument for Loretta Lynch.

"I think that Attorney General Lynch is the most likely candidate. I think the administration is likely to nominate her, that the Senate will initially refuse to proceed with the nomination but ultimately accede after delaying the process significantly, and then vote her down on party lines. At that point, Republicans will slow-walk a follow-up nominee and claim that it is too close to the election to act on the candidate."​

But she might just have similar "Executive Privilege" issues.

 

[Aim1]

God, if Loretta Lynch is chosen we are done. Same with someone like Holder or Amy Klobaucher.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The early announcements from the GOP Senators have been that they will not confirm any nomination made by Obama. We'll have to hold them to that, but I also think they know any vote would be a career-ending move.

But it makes the stakes in the Presidential election higher than any since 1980.

James Woods (the actor) tweeted to just ignore the nomination. I like it.

http://twitchy.com/2016/02/14/thats...ome-advice-for-the-gop-on-scalia-replacement/

 

[Midwest]

I see two possible devastating scenarios. Wanting to fulfill his anti-gun agenda, 0bama nominates Michael Bloomberg. Or worse, appoints him as a recess appointment.

Or, 0bama nominates himself, stepping down when appointed, handing the presidency to Biden to complete his term. With Hilary on the rocks, Biden would be the front runner to get the nomination and possibly the election running as the incumbent.

Or Feinstien, Schumer or any other rabid anti's. Or "The Shoulder thing that goes up" lady.


I thought I mention that I saw on TV Hillary giving a a hissy fit over Republicans blocking any nomination


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-response



.

 

[Traffer]

Block it for an entire year, I bet they don't have the stones for that, but I sure hope I'm wrong.

This certainly isn't my realm of expertise.

I was 21 years old in 1973. I wasn't political at all. One day I heard that the USA had "legalized abortion". I was literally shocked. I asked my father, "how can they do such a thing?" He explained how the Supreme Court did it. I firmly believe that it was not only a shock on earth but a shock in heaven. How many millions of children have been legally murdered since? Now, we lose the greatest champion of the 2nd amendment in our life time. He was the deciding vote on the Supreme Court that kept them from "ditching the freedom to carry arms" just like they ditched millions of helpless babies with the Roe Vs Wade decision. Obama will of course nominate a anti-second amendment justice for the Supreme Court. One that will "appear" to be somewhat sympathetic to the right to bear arms. Our stinking, foul, dirty, gutless RINO representatives in the Senate will exercise their gutlessness in approving the nomination. The new Supreme Court Justice will sit quietly until the opportune time and WHAM, out of the blue, our guns will be taken away. Half of the people I know who own guns think that our government wouldn't do such a thing. (Mostly the young kids who were educated by the socialist teachers in our public schools. The ones who have been told that their parents are nice but really stupid and the teachers really know best.) ....Anyway, you get my point. Thanks for letting me rant.

 

[Crawdad1]

Taken away Traffer??? By who???? Draconian restrictions on the ownership of various types of guns like semi automatics (think fully automatic type restrictions) so that it becomes such a pain to own them is more likely.

How far they go with those restrictions and how many different types of guns are involved in those restrictions?

The sky's the limit.