Law Scalia Died today

[Ruprecht]

I'll give you the courtesy of answering your question in a unbiased fashion.
In all honesty this will be the longest the Senate will have gone with out confirming a Justice. There is precedent for not appointing a Justice in the final term of the President but those were typically lame duck presidents. So much closer to the end of there term i.e. a month or two rather than 11. I think the longest that a Supreme Court position has gone without being filled is 126 days. 351 days will be unprecedented.

I really don't pay much attention to Americam law, except as it pertains to foreign policy and international politics.
Don't you think the supreme court, and especially it's separation of power, is fundamentally broken when it's repeatedly split along Liberal versus Conservative lines on cases such as the stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and when parties will go to such lengths to control the political make up of the bench?

 

[ultramanhyata]

The GOP may not have a choice because, it will look like they are obstructing.

What?? Willingness to be an obstructionist is now the litmus test within the republican party for being a "true" conservative.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Two points I heard this morning:
1) The longest confirmation of a Justice, Justice Thomas, took 100 days. There are 340 days left in the Obama presidency.
2) By obstructing this process, the GOP is basically calling the Obama presidency illegitimate in their eyes.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

What?? Willingness to be an obstructionist is now the litmus test within the republican party for being a "true" conservative.

It's one of the reasons I don't vote GOP. They're like children: if they don't get their way, they take the ball and go home.

 

[Islam Imamate]

2) By obstructing this process, the GOP is basically calling the Obama presidency illegitimate in their eyes.

Was it ever legitimate in their eyes? We had birther nonsense before he was even elected.

 

[ncordless]

I really don't pay much attention to Americam law, except as it pertains to foreign policy and international politics.
Don't you think the supreme court, and especially it's separation of power, is fundamentally broken when it's repeatedly split along Liberal versus Conservative lines on cases such as the stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and when parties will go to such lengths to control the political make up of the bench?

As Americans, it is our most fundamental nature to politicize the law. We are a nation of laws whose basic legal documents are held in reverence akin to religiius texts/relics. Our nationhood is staked not on our ethnicity, but rather our legal status. Our fundamental political disagreements are at base, disagreements of legal interpretation.

That contentious cases are close cases is simply a reflection of this basic fact.

 

[Fawlty]

This is what Mitch McConnel was put on Earth to do. The Senate needs to hold the line for a unprecedented amount of time but if they do not America is in trouble. I truly believe that this election and Scalia's replacement dictate the fate of the Republic for the next 100 years. How many 5-4 decisions have there been in the past few years? If you are part of the NRA send money earmarked specifically ear marked for this. If you are part of GOA send money. If you are unaffiliated with a lobby then write and call your Congressman and Senator. If you don't like the idea of government mandated green cars, illegals voting and single shot smart guns then you need to act. Be passionate and political even if you have never been in your life because this election dictates our countries path for the rest of your life. Ask yourself what sort of country do you want to leave for your kids and you'll get out that checkbook and take time off to attend that rally.

This is almost Alex Jones level.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is what Mitch McConnel was put on Earth to do. The Senate needs to hold the line for a unprecedented amount of time but if they do not America is in trouble. I truly believe that this election and Scalia's replacement dictate the fate of the Republic for the next 100 years. How many 5-4 decisions have there been in the past few years? If you are part of the NRA send money earmarked specifically ear marked for this. If you are part of GOA send money. If you are unaffiliated with a lobby then write and call your Congressman and Senator. If you don't like the idea of government mandated green cars, illegals voting and single shot smart guns then you need to act. Be passionate and political even if you have never been in your life because this election dictates our countries path for the rest of your life. Ask yourself what sort of country do you want to leave for your kids and you'll get out that checkbook and take time off to attend that rally.

Wouldn't the recent SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd amendment make that much more difficult? If I'm not mistaken one of them affirmed the right to own a gun for self defense and struck down a handgun ban as unconstitutional. With that kind of precedent I can't see any drastic gun control bans being constitutional but you're the lawyer here.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Is there any precedent for a president not filling a vacancy because it came up in his last year? Or for the Senate outright stating that they will not accept an elected president's legitimacy? IMO, Republicans are in really dangerous territory here. I think we're closer to outright fascism than we've ever been (note that 43% of Republicans say they could see supporting a military coup).

It's all saber rattling at this point. My guy Sri will be the guy.

For them to try to pull this.... It would be cute at first then bite them in the ass with independents

 

[ncordless]

This is almost Alex Jones level.

Alanb is a special case. Hes got a personal interest in several gun rights cases that rely upon a court ready to expand heller's interpretation of 2nd amendment. The chances of that happening took a huge blow when the author of heller died. He's in freak out mode.

 

[trident]

I really don't pay much attention to Americam law, except as it pertains to foreign policy and international politics.
Don't you think the supreme court, and especially it's separation of power, is fundamentally broken when it's repeatedly split along Liberal versus Conservative lines on cases such as the stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and when parties will go to such lengths to control the political make up of the bench?

Like all facets of America, the judiciary is corrupt and Scalia was one of the largest corrupting influences in American law.

Asking if it the separation of powers is broken assumes that there is or has been a real separation of power. There isnt.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Alanb is a special case. Hes got a personal interest in several gun rights cases that rely upon a court ready to expand heller's interpretation of 2nd amendment. The chances of that happening took a huge blow when the author of heller died. He's in freak out mode.

Isn't he also pretty weird generally? I remember him saying something about pot pie in San Francisco and what it means about the political culture.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Was it ever legitimate in their eyes? We had birther nonsense before he was even elected.

True. Plus, there was that whole McConnell meeting the night of his inauguration where they vowed to block everything and anything Obama wanted.

 

[Ruprecht]

As Americans, it is our most fundamental nature to politicize the law. We are a nation of laws whose basic legal documents are held in reverence akin to religiius texts/relics. Our nationhood is staked not on our ethnicity, but rather our legal status. Our fundamental political disagreements are at base, disagreements of legal interpretation.

That contentious cases are close cases is simply a reflection of this basic fact.

Well, that certainly fits with how I see America(ns), but doesn't that still effectively mean the separation of powers is a complete farce?

 

[Tekk]

 

[Fawlty]

Alanb is a special case. Hes got a personal interest in several gun rights cases that rely upon a court ready to expand heller's interpretation of 2nd amendment. The chances of that happening took a huge blow when the author of heller died. He's in freak out mode.

Well that would help explain the dire threat to the republic message. A bit over the top even considering that though.

 

[Ruprecht]

Isn't he also pretty weird generally? I remember him saying something about pot pie in San Francisco and what it means about the political culture.

Spent too much time hanging out with Koppenhaver maybe. Can't be good for you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Spent too much time hanging out with Koppenhaver maybe. Can't be good for you.

Alan and I actually have at least one mutual acquaintance. Small world.

 

[ncordless]

Well, that certainly fits with how I see America(ns), but doesn't that still effectively mean the separation of powers is a complete farce?

Not at all. But the separation is not complete, there's also the checks and balances.

 

[PHATV]

Wouldn't the recent SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd amendment make that much more difficult? If I'm not mistaken one of them affirmed the right to own a gun for self defense and struck down a handgun ban as unconstitutional. With that kind of precedent I can't see any drastic gun control bans being constitutional but you're the lawyer here.

Obama, Kagan and Sotomayor have all said the 2nd doesn't mean what it plainly says. That it does not protect an individual right to own a weapon. And that people shouldn't be able to have guns. Only government and police. They have all said that or shown that in prior years. They will flip that Heller decision in a heartbeat as "incorrect". As soon as they are able. Delaying an appointment may extend the union. Forcing one will almost assuredly cause internal division the likes of which we have not seen in centuries. The court interprets the constitution, so that's why this is so drastic. They get a 5-4 majority, and they will rule any and all gun bans constitutional. They will not observe precedent. They are progressives. It's not what they do. They're smarter than precedent. They're smarter than anyone. And anyone who disagrees is a radical or dumb or racist. The playbook has been open for a while.

That's only one issue, but to suggest that liberals will observe precedent in their rulings on that issue? No chance.