Scalia dead at 79 - Page 8 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Scalia dead at 79

...

Page 8 of 80

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 28 58

Last

Page 8 of 80

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 28 58

Last

02-13-2016 , 07:37 PM

#176

Dutch101

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,987

Doesn't really matter if he nominated a centrist or a liberal judge because the republicans will not accept anyone nominated by Obama. It does makes this election even more interesting to follow then it already was.

02-13-2016 , 07:38 PM

#177

Melkerson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron81

Due diligence to find the right nominee. I'm thinking April.

I obviously don't' know, but I imagine they've got to have a couple of people pre-vetted as a contingency for just this sort of thing. At the very least they can just work off the shortlist they must have had when they nominated Kagan. Only knock is that those people are 5 years older now. Everyone seems to want them pretty young these days so they'll last.

02-13-2016 , 07:39 PM

#178

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Obama should name himself as a recess appointment for maximum constitutional crisis.

02-13-2016 , 07:40 PM

#179

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,665

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Also why the hell would democrats nominate a centrist? They have a huge advantage in the senate map, and are the favorite for the whitehouse. Dems have a solid chance of completely flipping the USSC in their favor by confirming a solid liberal for scalia's seat.

That's a good point. Just go for it. Don't play scared.

02-13-2016 , 07:40 PM

#180

ALLTheCookies

half a brain

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 23,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dynasty

Lindsay Graham is live on FNC.

He says there's no way an Obama nominee will be confirmed and says the next President will appoint Scalia's replacement.

Graham is talking about how upset Republican senators are about Harry Reid changing the nominating/filibuster rules last year.

If Lindsay Graham is on board for blocking any Obama nominee, then there's no chance for Obama getting a judge on the Supreme Court. He's the type of deal-making Republican that would be absolutely necessary to get 50+ votes.

4 GOP Senators are up for reelection in blue states though.

02-13-2016 , 07:40 PM

#181

nyc999

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 18,661

Wow the implications for the Presidential race and composition for the Court are insane. Obama going with a centrist would be such a win-win move for him.

Firing up popcorn for tonight

02-13-2016 , 07:40 PM

#182

esad

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 13,183

Ivanka for Justice

(It could happen)

02-13-2016 , 07:42 PM

#183

Uncle Wimp

adept

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,174

I would love it just for the theater if Obama nominated himself. My second choice would be for Obama to nominate Joe Biden, so we could see the roles reversed from when then Senate Judiciary Chairman Biden went off on Reagan nominee Robert Bork. Committee member Ted Cruz grilling Biden would be epic.

02-13-2016 , 07:43 PM

#184

Melkerson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,066

Has there been any reporting on the cause of death? Was he known to be ill or anything like that? Everything I've seen so far has been very vague.

02-13-2016 , 07:44 PM

#185

ASAP17

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,882

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melkerson

Has there been any reporting on the cause of death? Was he known to be ill or anything like that? Everything I've seen so far has been very vague.

They are saying he told people he felt ill last night & was found dead this morning. Initial COD is natural causes.

02-13-2016 , 07:46 PM

#186

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

It would have to be somewhat centrist. Republicans aren't dropping to 45 or less. They only need 40.

02-13-2016 , 07:46 PM

#187

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

I'm not sure why stonewalling is the obvious right strategy for republicans. It's entirely possible they end up facing Clinton + Democratic majority in the senate.

02-13-2016 , 07:47 PM

#188

LFS

emo gaylord

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 21,865

I have inside information on who Obama is going to nominate:

Spoiler:

02-13-2016 , 07:48 PM

#189

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Expert troll: Michelle

02-13-2016 , 07:48 PM

#190

anatta

diamond sharp wisdom

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 35,729

Really stunned by CNN just now. for 20 mins, the normality of a filibuster, the assumption that we wont get a new Justice, the whole "maybe it will be better to just leave it up to the voters"...we LEFT IT UP TO THE GODDAMN VOTERS IN 2012.

02-13-2016 , 07:48 PM

#191

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

It would have to be somewhat centrist. Republicans aren't dropping to 45 or less. They only need 40.

Dems snap change filibuster rules if the seat is still open with senate and whitehouse control.

02-13-2016 , 07:49 PM

#192

Dynasty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 25,942

Susan Estrich is on FNC and says she's tried many times to make Supreme Court nominations a campaign issue and has never really succeeded.

It's an issue which only a small number of voters take seriously.

Estrich was campaign manager for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and previously law clerk for John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

02-13-2016 , 07:49 PM

#193

DudeImBetter

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 10,664

So excited for the debate

02-13-2016 , 07:49 PM

#194

nyc999

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 18,661

Further, dig up a centrist where a handful of longstanding GOP senators have been positively on record about at one time or another.

02-13-2016 , 07:49 PM

#195

anatta

diamond sharp wisdom

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 35,729

CNN put up this tweet from Reid

Quote:

Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/SenatorReid
1 of 5
25 mins ago - View on Twitter
Would be unprecedented in recent history for SCOTUS to go year with vacancy. And shameful abdication of our constitutional responsibility.
2 of 5
26 mins ago - View on Twitter
The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.

and they were like "well maybe Obama will take his advice and nominate someone" with a whole "seems kinda crazy and pointless but meh" attitude.

02-13-2016 , 07:51 PM

#196

nyc999

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 18,661

McConnell is now calling for it to be filled by the next president.

02-13-2016 , 07:52 PM

#197

anatta

diamond sharp wisdom

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 35,729

CNN is like "you know, some say the President nominates vacancies and the Senate Confirms, but others say you wait a year or so and let the next President do it..."

If only we had something to guide us here, a law or some precedent. And then CNN would say, but maybe we should just let the voters decide on an issue this big. (which they said!) Again, didn't the voters already ****ing decide?

I am fired up.

02-13-2016 , 07:54 PM

#198

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by anatta

CNN put up this tweet from Reid

and they were like "well maybe Obama will take his advice and nominate someone" with a whole "seems kinda crazy and pointless but meh" attitude.

They're saying that it is crazy and pointless to nominate someone? That's insane. It would be crazy not to nominate anyone for ten months.