Kinja reply list

Read More
Ginger Is A ConstructHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:30am
The gift that keeps on giving. I read somewhere that the lower courts’ rulings are going to tend to be more liberal, is that (admitted generalization) accurate? If so, won’t a few cases like this put pressure on the Republicans to approve a moderate nominee? Otherwise this seems like a lose-lose proposition for them, all based on the hope that Trump or Cruz or Rubot will win.*

*Making this really a lose-lose-lose proposition for moderate Republicans.
Reply
- Read More
  nopunin10didGinger Is A Construct
  2/15/16 9:33am
  Not all lower courts’ rulings are more liberal. There are a few Appeals circuits that are much more conservative.
  Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverGinger Is A Construct
  2/15/16 9:39am
  I f I were Obama I would not put forth a moderate at this point. The Senate made their own bed when they said they’d block any and everyone, so they should have to consider whomever Obama considers progressive, whomever Clinton or Sanders considers progressive, or deal with the fall-out of their obstructionism both in cases such as this, and any backlash in public opinion from refusing to do their jobs. They can’t arbitrarily change the rules against precedent and suffer no consequences.
  Reply
Read More
Sean BrodyHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:38am
Even if President Obama cannot get a new Supreme Court justice confirmed before he leaves office, Antonin Scalia may have singlehandedly saved America’s public sector unions by dying when he did.

Thanks, Antonin.

On the larger issue, has anyone anticipated a “Thanks, but no thanks” response from Sri Srinivasan and others if the president asks them to be his nominee?
Who wants to surrender their career to be fodder for the wackadoodle GOP Senate majority?
Is this likely, or is everyone just so chuffed to be nominated, they always say yes?
Reply
- Read More
  phunkshunSean Brody
  2/15/16 9:41am
  I can’t see anyone who’s tapped turning the President down. That’s really bad form for basically the highest legal honor they could ever give a law practicioner.
  
  Seriously. It’s like turning down a Medal of Honor or a Nobel Prize. It’s just not done.
  Reply
- Read More
  PseudoHermesSean Brody
  2/15/16 9:43am
  They don’t actually have to give up their current jobs to be nominated, so there’s no harm in shooting for it. And those judges have been up before the Senate once already, so presumably they can handle the spotlight.
  Reply
Read More
ReburnsABurningReturnsHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 10:00am
The notion that stalling this vote will hurt Republicans that has become the standing narrative in the comments is the same sorts of myth making that people always engage in when trying to construct narratives that support their positions.

Any political power in defending the notion that the Senate should just “confirm” the President’s selection for judicial appointments died the day that Bork got borked. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Bork got borked, but in doing so, any expectation of deference or constitutional duty to confirm a President’s appointment was henceforth lost.

As a citizen who wants most of the power in my country to rest with the legislature, this is not a bad thing either. The Supreme Court is too powerful to defer to the selection of the executive branch. Personally I’d also prefer it to have a lot more justices.
Reply
- Read More
  MiniatureamericanflagsforothersReburnsABurningReturns
  2/15/16 10:24am
  “Any political power in defending the notion that the Senate should just “confirm” the President’s selection for judicial appointments died the day that Bork got borked.”
  
  That’s not exactly the problem here. The Democratic Senate didn’t tell Reagan before Reagan had even announced someone “we don’t care whom you select, we won’t even consider them.”
  Reply
- Read More
  festivusaziliReburnsABurningReturns
  2/15/16 10:43am
  The “have a lot more justices” solution just adds power to the executive that happens to be in office when you add more justices. FDR tried it as a way of breaking the court’s obstinance over New Deal legislation. It’s certainly not an ideal solution.
  
  I do agree with your general point,. The Senate shouldn’t approve all appointments as a rubber stamp. But they should vote on the nominee, rather than just refuse to take a vote, which is the likely scenario.
  Reply
Read More
Jess the RipperHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:31am
Isn’t the caveat “for now” since it is very likely any now 4-4 will be reexamined next session?
Reply
- Read More
  skefflesJess the Ripper
  2/15/16 9:35am
  That would be bad news since any Republican would put a a very right wing person in there, and with her reliance on big donors so would Hillary (although, she might -unless she had to cut a deal to avoid an impeachment- appoint a pro-business pro-abortion rights judge). Remember, Hillary is pro-Wall Street and pro-big business so employment rights are not even close to being on her agenda to defend.
  Reply
- Read More
  TownaceNoahJess the Ripper
  2/15/16 9:36am
  I don’t think ties are automatically revisited during the next session. The lower court ruling stands, but does not establish a precedent. My guess (only a guess, I’m not a legal scholar) is that a new, similar case would have to rise through the system for the issue to be re-addressed.
  Reply
Read More
thd7tHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:30am
It’s hardly “dying tragically” when a 79 year old overweight man has a heart attack. That’s “dying naturally”.
Reply
- Read More
  skefflesthd7t
  2/15/16 9:33am
  Dying tardily is also a fair description, a lot of people who lived much better lives than him died younger than him because of his rulings. He liked to lean on the Bible, so by that book he was 9 years late in doing so.
  Reply
Read More
Pink SkullHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:33am
Just so I know, does Roberts have any tie breaker powers in an 8 person court?
Reply
- Read More
  BrotherFromAnotherMotherPink Skull
  2/15/16 9:36am
  One justice, one vote.
  
  The only thing different about the Chief Justice is that s/he is in charge of the administrative end of the SCOTUS.
  Reply
- Read More
  bogart_83Pink Skull
  2/15/16 9:37am
  No. A 4-4 tie means that the lower courts ruling stands, with no Supreme Court precedent being handed down.
  
  Essentially, all of these cases will be before the Supreme Court again when Scalia’s seat is filled. We just don’t know when that will be.
  Reply
Read More
TownaceNoahHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:28am
So, what you’re saying is, there IS a God?
Reply
Read More
skefflesHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:30am
Apt that, as with most Republicans, his death does more good than his life.
Reply
Read More
KaidogHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:49am
I’ll be listening for Nina Totenberg’s Supreme Court reporting every day now. This is going to be a particularly interesting season now that the court is down to 8 members, and that’s even without any sideshow accompanying a nomination fight.
Reply
- Read More
  lorem ipsumKaidog
  2/15/16 10:47am
  Her coverage of the SC is awesome!
  Reply
- Read More
  xfvjKaidog
  2/15/16 11:11am
  She’s a national treasure. Concise, comprehensive, and her dramatic readings of the Court’s exchanges are way easier to follow than raw audio or the transcripts of same.
  Reply
Read More
IanHamilton Nolan
2/15/16 9:33am
I tried to explain this to my girlfriend. That a “champion” of the conservatives, with as much authority as he had, being one of nine Supreme Court justices, had a very direct effect on the way the country moves.

And because of the shit this asshole said about my friends of the gay community, over the years, I am not, in any way shape or form, sympathetic. He was a gigantic piece of shit and held us back.
Reply