Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[Spider-Dan]

This is a Big.  Effing.  Deal.

Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of natural causes today.  Constitutionally, it falls to the President to nominate a replacement, which must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.

The chances of the currently-majority Republican Senate confirming a replacement Supreme Court justice that is nominated by outgoing President Obama is, shall we say, slim.  But this particular appointment holds more meaning than any other in recent history.

You may have noticed that the 9-member Supreme Court, over the last 2 decades or so, frequently hands down 5-4 decisions on controversial cases like Heller (gun control), Citizens United (campaign finance), NIFB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell (Obamacare), Obergefell (gay marriage), etc.  This is because for the last few decades, the Supreme Court has generally been composed of 4 liberal justices, 4 conservative justices, and one additional conservative justice who can sometimes be swayed on social issues (Anthony Kennedy).  Outgoing justices have generally timed their retirements to align with a President that would nominate a like-minded replacement.

This throws all of that out of whack.   Scalia was one of the reliably conservative justices; a liberal replacement could then switch many future decisions to 5-4 in favor of a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

Presuming the likely scenario of the GOP Senate refusing to confirm anyone for the rest of the year*, the November 2016 election will not only determine the next President and the makeup of the Senate, but will also determine whether the Supreme Court maintains its conservative majority or switches to a majority-liberal bench.

I know there's frequently talk about how "this is the most important election ever" and so forth, but in this case, it's really true: 2016 will be the most consequential election any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes.  American voters will essentially have the power to choose the direction of all three branches of government, simultaneously.

Florida voters in particular, take heed:  this is a really, REALLY big deal.

[Baba Booey]

The odds on favorite to be his replacement seems to be Sri Srinivasan

The senate already voted on him in 2013 and he passed with a 97-0 vote. Rubio, Cruz, and McConnell voted in favor of him. If nominated going to be tough to run out the clock on a guy everyone has already vetted, voted on, and didn't have a single vote against him.

[masterfins]

Condolences to Scalia's family, from all accounts he was a great person and family man.  However, I am glad he is no longer on the Supreme Court, as I disagreed with him on 90% of the important issues that the Court ruled on.

Given the way the Senate has behaved for the last (7) years they will most likely try to delay the nomination of the new Supreme until the next President takes office.  BUT, let's say Obama puts up a moderate jurist for nomination to the bench, and the Senate won't vote on him/her until after the election; then if Clinton or Sanders win the election they could be stuck with the new President nominating only far left leaning jurists, which would greatly hurt their causes.  Given the age of the current Justices, the next President will likely nominate two or three new Justices, so the Republicans may be better off confirming the nominee of Obama (if a moderate).  Not too mention it may help them in the elections to be able to say they weren't playing politics with the position.

[CF DolFan]

The worst thing about politics isn't the difference of opinion but  how it pretty much exposes how everyone is a hypocrite.

 Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an "obstructionist" for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.

"When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week."

Almost every single thing Democrats complain about and use for propaganda they are guilty of themselves just as the Rupublicans are just as guilty of the same thing. They both try and "justify" why it's OK for them to do things but if we are all being honest they are all guilty of the same things.

[Phishfan]

^^^ That's all well and good except for the fact that there were no vacancies on the court during that period. There is a bit of a difference between a politician trying to get some spotlight for a straw man position rather than politicians actually holding up the government.

[CF DolFan]

^^^ That's all well and good except for the fact that there were no vacancies on the court during that period. There is a bit of a difference between a politician trying to get some spotlight for a straw man position rather than politicians actually holding up the government.

And how does that change his hypocrisy? That was my point. That's about as blatant as it can get. 

[Rich]

^^^ That's all well and good except for the fact that there were no vacancies on the court during that period. There is a bit of a difference between a politician trying to get some spotlight for a straw man position rather than politicians actually holding up the government.

Except that from 2005 forward, the Democrat Party's approach to handling Bush's 2nd term was to obstruct everything based on their own internal party memos.

The problem with politics is that when one party is in power, they do things the other party doesn't like. When the other party takes power, they do the things they didn't like when the other party was in power. And it escalates from there.

Democrats were obstructing Bush, Republicans complained. Now Republicans obstruct Obama because Democrats did it before... but Republicans have upped the ante on obstructing.

Schumer made this declaration in 2007. Now Republicans can obstruct nominations and point to what Schumer said in 2007, whether it was really exercised or not, the intent was there.

Maybe if the parties were interested in actually getting things done, the discord wouldn't continue escalating.

[Rich]

This is a Big.  Effing.  Deal.

Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of natural causes today.  Constitutionally, it falls to the President to nominate a replacement, which must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.

The chances of the currently-majority Republican Senate confirming a replacement Supreme Court justice that is nominated by outgoing President Obama is, shall we say, slim.  But this particular appointment holds more meaning than any other in recent history.

You may have noticed that the 9-member Supreme Court, over the last 2 decades or so, frequently hands down 5-4 decisions on controversial cases like Heller (gun control), Citizens United (campaign finance), NIFB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell (Obamacare), Obergefell (gay marriage), etc.  This is because for the last few decades, the Supreme Court has generally been composed of 4 liberal justices, 4 conservative justices, and one additional conservative justice who can sometimes be swayed on social issues (Anthony Kennedy).  Outgoing justices have generally timed their retirements to align with a President that would nominate a like-minded replacement.

This throws all of that out of whack.   Scalia was one of the reliably conservative justices; a liberal replacement could then switch many future decisions to 5-4 in favor of a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

Presuming the likely scenario of the GOP Senate refusing to confirm anyone for the rest of the year*, the November 2016 election will not only determine the next President and the makeup of the Senate, but will also determine whether the Supreme Court maintains its conservative majority or switches to a majority-liberal bench.

I know there's frequently talk about how "this is the most important election ever" and so forth, but in this case, it's really true: 2016 will be the most consequential election any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes.  American voters will essentially have the power to choose the direction of all three branches of government, simultaneously.

Florida voters in particular, take heed:  this is a really, REALLY big deal.

Obama should throw a wrench in the whole "politics as usual" meme and nominate a very moderate, middle of the road, non controversial judge that would put the Republicans in a position to have to accept him or her. It would be best for the country anyway so we're not beholden to two extremes.

But I doubt this will happen. He'll probably nominate an activist judge because the opportunity to take control of the Supreme Court from an ideological perspective is too good to pass up.

[Baba Booey]

Obama should throw a wrench in the whole "politics as usual" meme and nominate a very moderate, middle of the road, non controversial judge that would put the Republicans in a position to have to accept him or her. It would be best for the country anyway so we're not beholden to two extremes.

But I doubt this will happen. He'll probably nominate an activist judge because the opportunity to take control of the Supreme Court from an ideological perspective is too good to pass up.

Sounds like he might nominate Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a former prosecutor who republicans actually kind of like. Not to mention she was already vetted and was approved by republicans to be in her current role. If they vote her down (or don't vote at all) it will hurt Republicans even more with Females and Minorities in upcoming presidential election if it comes off as Republicans giving a black female a raw deal.

[Spider-Dan]

The worst thing about politics isn't the difference of opinion but  how it pretty much exposes how everyone is a hypocrite.

 Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

You are comparing hypothetical Democratic obstruction of a hypothetical vacancy to actual Republican obstruction of an actual vacancy.

In point of fact, when there actually was a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a Republican president's term, the Democrats confirmed a successor; as was pointed out to Ted Cruz, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, Reagan's last year.

[Spider-Dan]

Obama should throw a wrench in the whole "politics as usual" meme and nominate a very moderate, middle of the road, non controversial judge that would put the Republicans in a position to have to accept him or her.

Surely you jest.

As was stated above, Sri Srinivasan (a former clerk for Scalia) was confirmed 93-0.  Do you think the GOP would even consider confirming him for SCOTUS?  Any GOP Senator who voted to confirm him would definitely lose his/her next primary.

[Rich]

You are comparing hypothetical Democratic obstruction of a hypothetical vacancy to actual Republican obstruction of an actual vacancy.

The obstruction isn't actual yet. It has been Mitch McConnell saying what they should do.

As far as I have seen, there has been no actual nominee.

Also, what does it matter? The intent was demonstrated by Schumer. He made an acceptable idea by even introducing it.

[Rich]

Surely you jest.

As was stated above, Sri Srinivasan (a former clerk for Scalia) was confirmed 93-0.  Do you think the GOP would even consider confirming him for SCOTUS?  Any GOP Senator who voted to confirm him would definitely lose his/her next primary.

Thank you for making this statement of irrefutable fact. 

[Spider-Dan]

You are correct to point out that there has been no nominee yet.  If/when there is, we will compare hypotheticals to actuals, which should be pretty easy since (again) Democrats actually confirmed Anthony Kennedy in the final year of a Republican president's second term.

I notice that although you seem to view my statement about Srinivasan with scorn, you did not address its accuracy.  Are you saying that you think Srinivasan would, in fact, be confirmed by the GOP Senate?  Perhaps it is your position that a judge who was confirmed 93-0 (including yes votes from both Cruz and Rubio) is "too extreme"?

It's pretty easy to say that Obama should nominate some Theoretical Unnamed Moderate and then laugh derisively when real, existing persons are cited.

[CF DolFan]

You are comparing hypothetical Democratic obstruction of a hypothetical vacancy to actual Republican obstruction of an actual vacancy.

I didn't realize Obama had already nominated someone or do Democrats hold the rites to "hypothetical".

You can always find an excuse as to why its OK for your folks to do anything yet you can't ever see why its OK for the other side to do the same thing ... thus immediately inserting yourself into the middle of the hypocritical conversation.