Antonin Scalia dead?

[/dev/null]

can you nominate yourself?

There's really no requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. There is also nothing that says there has to be nine Justices. The President could leave the seat vacant or nominate as many Justices as he sees fit

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[boyst]

There's really no requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. There is also nothing that says there has to be nine Justices. The President could leave the seat vacant or nominate as many Justices as he sees fit

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

but can he nominate himself???

[Tiberius]

The political advantage is simply in time. Dems get to suggest that the repubs are holding up a confirmation for an inordinate amount of time simply for the sake of playing politics on the highest court in the land. It stays in the news cycle longer. It becomes a topic during debates. The Dems can message around competent candidate being blocked because the candidate is a ____. The repubs are stuck with "let's wait a year or more so that we can maybe put our ally.

and, 3/4 of the lower courts are liberal leaning now so those ruling will stand with a divided supreme court

[Chef Jim]

but can he nominate himself???

It doesn't say he can't.

[boyst]

It doesn't say he can't.

would it matter if it did?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I can see this happening. My larger point was the senator angle to avoid a contentious nomination battle. And Klobachar is considered in very high regard by her colleagues in the senate. I know this fact personally.

I lack intimate knowledge, but have heard that to be the case of Kolbachar. 16 or 20 years ago, this would have been an almost obvious strategy for an outgoing lame-duck President. However, In this political environment I don't believe there is a non-contentious nominee. Any vote to confirm someone with a well documented liberal legislative agenda would almost certainly result in a challenge from the right for the voter's office. Any Republican Senator who wants to keep their job would be obligated to reject that sort of nomination.

[Juror#8]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/

 

Interesting. Obama might not mind a deadlocked court. Nice read on the situation

 

Oh, and I see late in Reagan's term Kennedy was appointed and approved

 

Good article. It relies on a fairly hefty presumption though ... with regard to how important the image of the court is to Roberts and how that will impact cases that have already been argued. And I disagree that 11 months is a long time in "court years" for liberals to be able to get meangiful cases on the lower court docket, heard, and ruled on ... and then breeze past a likely dead-locked Supreme Court. Remember, the Supreme Court doesn't have a time frame with which they have to review petitions for cert.

 

But good read nonetheless.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you don't think that all justices do this to some degree, all of them, than square Scalia's on-the-record agreement with the majority in the Brown v. Board decision with his otherwise very originalist and textual jurisprudence.

 

His failure to illuminate his reasons for agreeing with the majority in Brown, even when pressed, is telling.

 

Scalia was a pragmatist. Just not often at all.

 

I would have loved to know his thoughts on the ""Bolling" decision. I heard him speak at uva a number of years ago but wasn't able to ask the question.

Scalia has gone back and forth on Brown v Board; he has stated that while he would have dissented on Brown, that he personally felt segregation was a moral wrong but that it wasn't the role of the Court to create law. He has also stated that he would have voted with the majority.

[Tiberius]

Scalia has gone back and forth on Brown v Board; he has stated that while he would have dissented on Brown, that he personally felt segregation was a moral wrong but that it wasn't the role of the Court to create law. He has also stated that he would have voted with the majority.

They were not creating law, they were correctly interpreting the 14th amendment's equal protection clause

[boater]

I don't see Obama or Hillary on SCOTUS.

 

They have very little courtroom experience. If you're on the SCOTUS bench, you need court room litigation experience, lots of it, to be qualified. You also should be a published scholar.

 

They are patently unqualified. I don't think either of them would accept a nomination because then their legal experience will be publicly scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, it portends to be an embarrassment for them. I don't think they want to go through that.

 

Hillary had suggested Obama for SCOTUS, I think that was a ploy to curry his favor so maybe he'll scuttle an indictment of her DoS activities.

[Tiberius]

Obama, a recess appointment?

[boater]

Obama, a recess appointment?

Maybe.

 

This guy suggests not. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

[TakeYouToTasker]

They were not creating law, they were correctly interpreting the 14th amendment's equal protection clause

They were creating law.

 

I'm not sure how you can state otherwise, given that the 14th Amendment was written and then existed durring a period of time when black Americans didn't enjoy social rights.

 

A backwards interpretation of the 14th which would confer social rights on black Americans, which clearly goes against the observable history surrounding it, grants meaning that the authors and ratifiers never intended.

[B-Man]

Antonin Scalia, Legal Giant NY Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Antonin Scalia´s death sparks battle for Supreme Court control

BBC

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

 

White House Issues Statement in Reaction to Justice Scalia’s Death While Obama Golfs

by Charlie Spiering

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

Dems Fundraise Off Death...

 

 

 

MCCONNELL: Vacancy will be filled by NEXT president...

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

 

 

Have to do it in next few days

They were creating law.

I'm not sure how you can state otherwise, given that the 14th Amendment was written and then existed durring a period of time when black Americans didn't enjoy social rights.

A backwards interpretation of the 14th which would confer social rights on black Americans, which clearly goes against the observable history surrounding it, grants meaning that the authors and ratifiers never intended.

Strange logic. The court ruled that they were not getting their rights unconstitutionally. So they were enforcing the constitution, not making laws.

[Juror#8]

Scalia has gone back and forth on Brown v Board; he has stated that while he would have dissented on Brown, that he personally felt segregation was a moral wrong but that it wasn't the role of the Court to create law. He has also stated that he would have voted with the majority.

So we seem to be in the same boat with our understandings around Scalia's positioning with regard to Brown. In or around 2005, he reversed course and articulated his last stance with regard to the Brown decision ... that he would have voted with the majority. The only way to square that jurisprudentially is for him to have arrived at his conclusion (segregation bad) and work outwards from there explanatorily. It is also a recognition that the wrong (segregation) would not have been resolved legislatively for another 20 years otherwise because legislative mechanics, by the very nature of our republican form of government, moves remarkably slow ... the harm notwithstanding.

 

This is the perfect example of something the founders didn't contemplate.

 

And it represents Scalia's greatest paradox.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Strange logic. The court ruled that they were not getting their rights unconstitutionally. So they were enforcing the constitution, not making laws.

The Constitution says what it says, not what 9 lawyers in black robes wish it said.

 

The purpose of the 14th was not to confer social rights on black Americans. We know this because of the history. No reasonable person could argue that the Amendment, ratified in 1868, pre-Jim Crow, which contains no prohibitions of segregation, intended otherwise.

 

The argument that Brown was correctly decided is both a moral and politically expedient one rather than one based on origional intent.

 

I'm of the belief that the moral outcome of Brown was the proper one, however I also believe that process and guiding structure are much more important to the long term health and stability of a society based on laws than individual outcomes are. When you corrupt the fabric of law by interjecting political expedience, you've lost consistency, and when you lose consistency you lose legitimacy.

Edited February 14, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

 

 

Have to do it in next few days

Strange logic. The court ruled that they were not getting their rights unconstitutionally. So they were enforcing the constitution, not making laws.

 

****. This is one time I agree with gatorman.

[boyst]

So we seem to be in the same boat with our understandings around Scalia's positioning with regard to Brown. In or around 2005, he reversed course and articulated his last stance with regard to the Brown decision ... that he would have voted with the majority. The only way to square that jurisprudentially is for him to have arrived at his conclusion (segregation bad) and work outwards from there explanatorily. It is also a recognition that the wrong (segregation) would not have been resolved legislatively for another 20 years otherwise because legislative mechanics, by the very nature of our republican form of government, moves remarkably slow ... the harm notwithstanding.

 

This is the perfect example of something the founders didn't contemplate.

 

And it represents Scalia's greatest paradox.

as a legal mind i respect, and many others here...

 

what is the take that he likely derived his process as you stated by reversing his decision from the back end; segregation bad so i must find legal disqualifications and qualifications to support this?

[Tiberius]

The Constitution says what it says, not what 9 lawyers in black robes wish it said.

The purpose of the 14th was not to confer social rights on black Americans. We know this because of the history. No reasonable person could argue that the Amendment, ratified in 1868, pre-Jim Crow, which contains no prohibitions of segregation, intended otherwise.

The argument that Brown was correctly decided is both a moral and politically expedient one rather than one based on origional intent.

I'm of the belief that the moral outcome of Brown was the proper one, however I also believe that process and guiding structure are much more important to the long term health and stability of a society based on laws than individual outcomes are. When you corrupt the fabric of law by interjecting political expedience, you've lost consistency, and when you lose consistency you lose legitimacy.

It's provided for equal protection and segregation violated that