Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 23:41:04 GMT
Turnabout is fair play, after all...
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Feb 13, 2016 23:41:06 GMT
Ask your professors this and then come back and tell me. Is Sandra Day O'Conner the only living ex-Justice? She has already been appointed, confirmed, served and retired. Could the president put her back on the bench without congress' approval? Anyone know if that would be possible in theory? Souter and Stevens are both still alive, but I don't think that's possible. They all retired and were replaced. I don't think there's a Constitutional provision for calling perpetual dibs on a seat. Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up. I'm guessing none of them would want to go back to work. I was just wondering, since they have already been confirmed once would they need congress approval to sit on the bench again. I think about weird things.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 23:47:07 GMT
Go read Breitbart.......already the conspiracy theories have started...."he was murdered", "I'm waiting for the toxicology reports", "where was Cecelia Richards last night", "Obama did it so he could appoint a Muslim to the court", "Obama did it so he could appoint a Socialist to the court" and 99% of those commenting agree that the GOP needs to play politics on blocking any appointment, screw the work of the court......It's fascinating and entertaining to read the comments.
|
|
|
Post by fkawitchypea on Feb 13, 2016 23:50:21 GMT
This is just one more reason that I hope a Democrat wins the Presidential election. I tend to vote with the Supreme Court as my number one priority. Presidents and political parties come and go but the Supreme Court Justices are there for a loooong time and can do a lot of damage or a lot of good. This. I struggle with politics. I am very socially liberal. That usually guides my vote because I feel so strongly in same sex marriage and reproductive rights, that although I agree with most other Republican policies, I feel so strongly about these, I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who could take away these rights.
|
|
eleezybeth
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,784
Jun 28, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
|
Post by eleezybeth on Feb 14, 2016 0:05:56 GMT
It makes me so sad to see his death politicized vs. his life and service appreciated. Can't we just appreciate his service today and tomorrow we can go back to the political nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by krazykatlady on Feb 14, 2016 0:07:51 GMT
Can't stand the man and am glad that Obama can appoint his replacement. There's no way Congress will let this happen. The next president will fill the spot.
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,616
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Feb 14, 2016 0:09:24 GMT
Can't stand the man and am glad that Obama can appoint his replacement. There's no way Congress will let this happen. The next president will fill the spot. Absolutely. And now this will become the big campaign trail question: "who will you appoint to the Supreme Court?"
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 14, 2016 0:12:22 GMT
Can't stand the man and am glad that Obama can appoint his replacement. There's no way Congress will let this happen. The next president will fill the spot. Yep, Mitch is already playing politics. What an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by AussieMeg on Feb 14, 2016 0:12:34 GMT
Some interesting comments on Facebook. I particularly liked this one:
(The guy who posted that attributed the quote to Mark Twain, but after googling it appears this is not the case.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 0:13:17 GMT
It makes me so sad to see his death politicized vs. his life and service appreciated. Can't we just appreciate his service today and tomorrow we can go back to the political nonsense? You can blame the Republicans for immediately taking it political and pretending it's honoring him and what he would want. Pretty reprehensible.
|
|
eleezybeth
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,784
Jun 28, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
|
Post by eleezybeth on Feb 14, 2016 0:24:19 GMT
It makes me so sad to see his death politicized vs. his life and service appreciated. Can't we just appreciate his service today and tomorrow we can go back to the political nonsense? You can blame the Republicans for immediately taking it political and pretending it's honoring him and what he would want. Pretty reprehensible. No. I don't have to blame anybody or any side. Honor the man. Left, right -WTF cares. Have just a little bit of decorum and hold yourself back from being a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Feb 14, 2016 0:32:09 GMT
It makes me so sad to see his death politicized vs. his life and service appreciated. Can't we just appreciate his service today and tomorrow we can go back to the political nonsense? You can blame the Republicans for immediately taking it political and pretending it's honoring him and what he would want. Pretty reprehensible. Seriously?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 0:34:32 GMT
You can blame the Republicans for immediately taking it political and pretending it's honoring him and what he would want. Pretty reprehensible. Seriously? Seriously what? Cruz & McConnell both included comments about delaying replacing him until after the election in their statements about his death. That's turning it political immediately and of course people are going to respond to that because it's unprecedented.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Feb 14, 2016 0:40:11 GMT
I read something interesting on Twitter.
If McConnell & co allow Obama to fill the seat they could be handing the nomination to Trump. But if they DON'T they could be handing the White House and November elections in general to the Dems.
|
|
oaksong
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,164
Location: LA Suburbia
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 6:24:29 GMT
|
Post by oaksong on Feb 14, 2016 1:05:04 GMT
I read something interesting on Twitter. If McConnell & co allow Obama to fill the seat they could be handing the nomination to Trump. But if they DON'T they could be handing the White House and November elections in general to the Dems. If he nominates an African-American, it would not look good for the Republicans to block it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 1:15:02 GMT
My money is on Sri Srinivasan, US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia as the eventual nominee.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Feb 14, 2016 1:20:35 GMT
I read something interesting on Twitter. If McConnell & co allow Obama to fill the seat they could be handing the nomination to Trump. But if they DON'T they could be handing the White House and November elections in general to the Dems. If he nominates an African-American, it would not look good for the Republicans to block it. Why? We already have an African-American justice, and the democrats sure did their best to block him...
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 14, 2016 1:21:09 GMT
This was a wise jurist who was loved on both sides of the aisle. He was noted not only for his incisive questioning of attorneys who appeared before him but also for his amazing wit. One of his best friends was Elena Kagan, who held political views diametrically opposed to his. Interestingly, they often went hunting together.
RIP, Justice Scalia.
|
|
|
Post by originalvanillabean on Feb 14, 2016 1:25:43 GMT
I just saw the headline. No words.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 14, 2016 1:27:39 GMT
I'm not in the mood to google, but I do not believe that it is "unprecedented" to hold judicial confirmation in an election year.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Feb 14, 2016 1:35:07 GMT
I'm not in the mood to google, but I do not believe that it is "unprecedented" to hold judicial confirmation in an election year. But it is also not unprecedented for a president to nominate a justice in an election year--as some Republicans would have you believe. Justice Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan in 1988. What were the Republican saying then? Where the Democrats throwing a fit, saying that Reagan should hold off so that the "American people could decide"?
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Feb 14, 2016 1:35:59 GMT
I'm not in the mood to google, but I do not believe that it is "unprecedented" to hold judicial confirmation in an election year. But it is also not unprecedented for a president to nominate a justice in an election year--as some Republicans would have you believe. Justice Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan in 1988. What were the Republican saying then? Where the Democrats throwing a fit, saying that Reagan should hold off so that the "American people could decide"? Never mind-- I see we agree. I read it as "hold off"...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 1:53:40 GMT
I'm not in the mood to google, but I do not believe that it is "unprecedented" to hold judicial confirmation in an election year. This early in an election year, I am pretty sure it is. ETA: Wait, what I was saying is unprecedented is *delaying* confirmation as long as Cruz, McConnell and others are suggesting, just because it's an election year.
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Feb 14, 2016 1:54:48 GMT
My he rest in peace and his family receive comfort. That said, things are about to get very interesting. I wonder how this will impact cases currently in front of the SCOTUS?? Thinking of his family
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 2:12:02 GMT
My he rest in peace and his family receive comfort. That said, things are about to get very interesting. I wonder how this will impact cases currently in front of the SCOTUS?? Thinking of his family I'm pretty sure the Court will still continue its regular argument calendar with or without a 9th judge. In the case of a 4-4 tie, the lower court's decision stands, though SCOTUS still gives opinions, both for and against.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,159
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Feb 14, 2016 2:13:04 GMT
My he rest in peace and his family receive comfort. That said, things are about to get very interesting. I wonder how this will impact cases currently in front of the SCOTUS?? Thinking of his family According to what I heard if the Supreme Court is spit it will revert back to the lower courts ruling.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Feb 14, 2016 2:15:42 GMT
I'm not in the mood to google, but I do not believe that it is "unprecedented" to hold judicial confirmation in an election year. This early in an election year, I am pretty sure it is. ETA: Wait, what I was saying is unprecedented is *delaying* confirmation as long as Cruz, McConnell and others are suggesting, just because it's an election year. Yeah...I'm confused about Lauren's wording...
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 14, 2016 2:22:28 GMT
I watched him speaking to law students on C-span awhile back. Yes, he was an interesting and witty speaker and certainly a brilliant man. RIP Justice Scalia.
I would have liked to see politics completely left out of the discussion at least till after the funeral, but Republicans have unfortunately made that impossible.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 14, 2016 2:51:50 GMT
Which will work to the benefits of both sides depending on the lower court decision.
You may be right there. I've heard that there is an unwritten rule (even has a name) that there are no nominations and no conformations after the summer before an election. So this would be early for such a delay.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:30:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 2:54:51 GMT
Which will work to the benefits of both sides depending on the lower court decision. You may be right there. I've heard that there is an unwritten rule (even has a name) that there are no nominations and no conformations after the summer before an election. So this would be early for such a delay. The so-called Thurmond Rule is indeed unwritten, has only been applied to the last six months of a president's term, and even then has not always been adhered to, again because it's not actually any kind of law.
|
|