Though first stopping to offer family and friends condolences after news broke on Saturday that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had unexpectedly passed away, the political world in the United States wasted no time in drawing the battle lines over the key who and when questions regarding the successor to the empty seat.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."
What effing nonsense. The American people do have a voice in that, and we exercised it in 2008 and 2012.
Repubs say that it should be a 'referendum' of the will of the people. Well, I hate to tell them this, but the people spoke quite clearly in 2012 concerning their choice of leadership. What makes the repubs think it will be any different this election year? #deludedclownsandfools
great minds think alike! ha!
The fallacy of the Republican argument for delaying naming a replacement for Scalia lies in the answer to this question: If circumstances were reversed, and one of the Court's liberals died during the last year of a Republican administration, would they be in favor of delaying appointing a replacement until after the next Presidential election? Thought so.
There is surely already a list of nominees, perhaps even ranked according to whom they would replace. Obama will wait a politically acceptable "mourning" period and then announce the nomination. If the Republicans in the Senate push too hard, it could engender a backlash in this election year. Buy Redenbacher, Inc. [POP] and get rich.
You mean do not have a voice?
Obama's statement makes me nauseous. Scalia was a thug who used the bench to further bigotry and an extremist right-wing and Ayn-Randite ideology.
But also, what makes the Republicans think the next president will not be Sanders? Is this a reflection of their confidence that Hillary will do their bidding? It seems to me their strategy should be to cut their losses and let the already fairly right-wing Obama appoint a judge.
The corporate fascist Constitution haters didn't waste any time, they went right for the sloppy gibberish. Damn that was fast.
By the way, for those who think Scalia's passing was too easy, I'd like to believe that when $atan came to collect what he was due, Scalia's last thoughts were "F*ck, there's a liberal pope in Rome and Sanders is running for president!"
I think you can be sure that Hillary will make this a "Yooge" argument that she must be the nominee to guarantee a Democratic victory in November, and an attempt to stifle any call for a revolt against her for the general election. As far as I'm concerned, this does nothing to change my determination to do everything I can to make sure that she NEVER becomes POTUS, the Court be damned. It is far, far more important to end the Clinton era and take back the Democratic Party for the people.
Ever since G.W. Bush was elected (ha ha) with his lies and wars, there has been an air of corruption that has lain across this country like a blanket. He packed the court before he left and seemed to give the Republicans the idea that they can rewrite the constitution and the duties of the house and senate. Scalia's passing is a boon for democracy in this country. He tried to legislate from the bench and openly showed his partisan feelings. He gave the court the air of corruption we now see in the Republican party in the house and senate. We have to vote en mass and get these maniacs out.
To question the right of the president to appoint a replacement (there are many appointments waiting to be confirmed now) is typical of their desire to destroy the parts of the constitution they don't like, like checks and balances. In their delusion they think we will elect a Republican president.
Change is in the air this year as Bernie Sanders exposes the rigged government and if elected it will come for them. Obama has put up with far too much from them. My guess is that many of the absurd things they do are unconstitutional and should be prosecuted. Hopefully with the country actively involved we can now clean up the mess. Scalia's passing has opened a door to undoing Citizens United for example. Sorry, but I'm so glad he's gone.
Also from SCOTUS Blog - Tom Goldstein:
The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court. Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not
necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.
If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four. In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case. Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision
is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
The most immediate and important implications involve that union case. A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue. Other significant cases in which the Court may now be equally divided
include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the “one person, one vote” guarantee), the cases
challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy.
The Court is also of course hearing a significant abortion case, involving multiple restrictions adopted by Texas. In my estimation, the Court was likely to strike those provisions down. If so, the Court
would still rule – deciding the case with eight Justices.Conversely, the Court was likely to limit affirmative action in public higher education in the Fisher case. But because only three of the liberal Justices are participating (Justice Kagan is recused), conservatives would retain a narrow majority.
There is also recent precedent for the Court to attempt to avoid issuing a number of equally divided rulings. In Chief Justice Roberts’s first Term, the Court in similar circumstances decided a number of
significant cases by instead issuing relatively unimportant, often procedural decisions. It is unclear if the Justices will take the same approach in any of this Term’s major, closely divided cases.
Goldstein also asserts Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford is the most likely nominee to replace Antonin Scalia
Anyone interested in dropping a line to the Senate calling on them to fulfill their Constitutional duty to work with the President to fill the SCOTUS seat -
Demand Progress has a petition up
What are these right wingers complaining about?
Obama will most likely try to appoint another right wing judge.
It will be ironic when the Senate refuses Obama's right wing appointee only to be left with a moderate appointed by Bernie.
Here is a way for the American people to have a voice in the selection and improve justice:
Democracy for America just sent out request to sign a petition to Obama;
...and sign it.
Though this cries out for the comment, that it is a sad state of affairs in our country, that we have to distinguish between "progressive" and "conservative" judges in our supposedly "independent" judiciary.
Ahhh, what a BIGGGG sigh of relief, the big dog finally croaks
Being a strict Constitutionalist, Tony Scalia demands Prez Obama appoint a new
woman Supreme Court Justice within 30 days.
Cruz says the American people deserve a voice in the selection of the next SCOTUS judge and therefore we should wait until after the election. How specious! The American people elected Barack Obama--twice--and THAT is precisely how we have a voice in selecting the next judge.
They'll call for overt police state and martial law when they can't get their dog appointed.
Cruz is wrong ! This political hack is no hero & Abused his power & trashed the constitution