Red Mosquito

I'm kidding.

Spoiler: show

I think.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Do you happen to know if the process has ever taken that long? The Senate certainly can obstruct, but a cursory glance at prior confirmation processes shows that the longest they seem to have gone is 4-5 months. In other words, is what the Senate is undoubtedly going to do unprecedented?

Well, Ted Cruz is kind of a shitty person.

digster wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Do you happen to know if the process has ever taken that long? The Senate certainly can obstruct, but a cursory glance at prior confirmation processes shows that the longest they seem to have gone is 4-5 months. In other words, is what the Senate is undoubtedly going to do unprecedented?

Probably, I can't think of a vacancy longer than 4-5 months as well. But the Senate is a different animal these days.

Hillary Clinton is the big winner here. You'll have Obama nominating someone from the NLRB or some lunatic left-wing faction that even most Democrats find extreme with the sole intention of having Republicans stonewall the process. Meanwhile Hillary runs against the Republican-led Congress more so than the Republican nominee. This is the worst-case scenario for the Republicans. Not only will they lose the White House, but they're guaranteed to lose the Senate.

Guys, there have been vacancies at the district-court level approaching 3 years. I would be surprised to see this filled before November.

I don't think Obama even has to go that far. Whoever he nominates is going to get stonewalled.

Chris_H_2 wrote:Hillary Clinton is the big winner here. You'll have Obama nominating someone from the NLRB or some lunatic left-wing faction that even most Democrats find extreme with the sole intention of having Republicans stonewall the process. Meanwhile Hillary runs against the Republican-led Congress more so than the Republican nominee. This is the worst-case scenario for the Republicans. Not only will they lose the White House, but they're guaranteed to lose the Senate.

This makes a lot of sense, the question will be whether the Republicans themselves think it's the worst case scenario. If they did then it would be in their best interest to broker a candidate with Obama now. But judging from the likes of Ted Cruz it appears they'll go big or go home.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Fitting that he died on a trip featuring guns.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I feel awful about how happy this death makes me

I don't. The world is now a better place. What a loathsome human being

I guess you're not a liberty loving American you commie!!!

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

I'm kind of surprised that no Republican lawmakers have tweeted their intentions to do so already.

I knew I should have posted this in here instead. No Republican cares more about the Court than this guy.

Yeah, the world's screwed. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Damnit, checked The Onion just a little too early.

For the Scalia haters out there, there were some cases in which you'll likely like which side he ended up on. Texas v. Johnson (flag burning) is the one that regularly gets brought up, but I'm going to lead instead with Ring v. Arizona, the ruling that has probably been the leading cause of the decline of the death penalty in America among Supreme Court cases.

BurtReynolds wrote:I like how liberals are so up in arms about the Republicans attempting to block a new judge. Of course they will. This is politics. Stop acting so shocked and appalled you retards.

Being shocked would be silly, but being upset would make sense. Blocking a SC nominee for as long as they'll have to would be unprecedented so liberals will have a legitimate grievance, even if the GOP actions makes sense in the context of today's political reality.

4/5 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I like how liberals are so up in arms about the Republicans attempting to block a new judge. Of course they will. This is politics. Stop acting so shocked and appalled you retards.

Being shocked would be silly, but being upset would make sense. Blocking a SC nominee for as long as they'll have to would be unprecedented so liberals will have a legitimate grievance, even if the GOP actions makes sense in the context of today's political reality.

Burt's right though. The only hope Obama has in getting to fill this seat is if there would be enough public outrage at the prospect of the Supreme Court going one seat empty for a year. And let's be honest, most people in America don't even know who Antonin Scalia is when/if they see this news.

Green Habit wrote:And let's be honest, most people in America don't even know who Antonin Scalia is when/if they see this news.

Check out this post from a colleague of mine: