http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/index.html What happens now?
Obama will nominate someone who has never used the constitution for anything other than toilet paper; and The Republican controlled congress will fall all over themselves in their eagerness to approve whoever he nominates. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions will be based solely on ideology, with little more than a passing reference to the constitution.
It will probably be the major precursor before the election this fall. Just how long will the process take? With the world watching, I would hope the Senate shows some muscle and fights back. They need to stand their ground and it should start with this nominee. As luck would have it, Obama has already put two people on the court!
It is difficult for any politician do anything except follow what everyone else dose because they are all in the pocket of the people who are running the system. When certain people say jump they all say how high.
The only thing that might save us is that this is an election year, and Republicans are sometimes able to gather up courage in an election year.
That's basically what I heard Marco Rubio say on Face the Nation today....no replacement until after the Election. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sen-marco-rubio-on-a-replacement-for-justice-antonin-scalia/
From what I understand, the present resident in the White House can pick someone while the Senate is in recess. Recently the Supreme Court ruled against Obama's recess lawmaking but picking a supreme courts justice wasn't covered. In 1960 Senator Hart (D) introduced a sense of the Senate bill which was passed stating that the president could NOT appoint a Supreme Court justice during a senatorial recess unless there were unusual circumstances such as the prevention or ending a breakdown in the court system. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/heres-how-supreme-court-nominations-work/ Our present White House resident has been able to circumvent quite a few items that should have gone through congress so I do wonder if this might be again one of those times when he attempts to bypass the laws that are already established.
I remember someone, can't remember who, saying that if Obama can easily change laws by himself, that they can easily be undone too. ...
Obama announced yesterday that he will be picking the replacement for the late Antonin Scalia. And he said it's his Constitutional right so it must be in the Constitution. And he is firm…no one is going to change his mind. He wasted no time announcing it. It's been almost 80 years since an appointment to the Supreme Court has happened in an election year. This is Obama's chance to get back at the Republicans for dragging his name through the mud. He knows every one of them wants him to wait as they all agreed on in the debate. The Republicans should because because Scalia was a strong Conservative. But Obama isn't about to do the candidates any favors. Isn't that because he's busy running for America's next President though? and he's a husband and father of 4 young children to add to the mix. All are important but when someone has that much on their plate then something important is bound to slip through the cracks. Senator, Husband and Father of 4, and 3rd place Presidential candidate...Which of those 3 would you make a 3rd place priority?
If I don't have time to do a job that I am hired to do, I have the decency to resign. I wouldn't expect to hold onto a job that I'm not doing while I spend my time looking for another. Truthfully, have any of you had a job that would keep you on as you spend all your time looking for another job?
hmmm, I see your point, but the dilemma is that Rubio probably didn't want to resign his senate seat as he's always been on the lower to mid half of the heap of presidential candidates…which likely will leave him out of the Presidential job and will need his job as Senator. I'm sure he already has his sights on 2024 if this one falls through. He's still very young. It would be a highly risky gamble to leave being Senator at this point…a move that would be considered idiotic by most.
No, he said it is his "Constitutional duty".... which it is. The Court would need to operate for close to a year under an 8-judge configuration. That would leave many important cases with no SCOTUS decision, which simply means the lower court's finding stands. Some of those decisions were already close to being handed down. Now, even if Scalia had started his opinion or dissent... it will never be made public and has no standing. ONLY the decision... or non-decision... of the 8 sitting Justices can be considered. It is the duty of the POTUS to appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the SCOTUS and it is the duty of the Senate to hold hearings to either confirm or deny the appointment. Before Scalia's body was cold, the GOP Senate leadership was saying they would not even consider an appointment by this POTUS. It is the Senate that would be ducking their Constitutional responsibility. If the POTUS puts forth a nominee, let the Senate deny confirmation. This leaves a clean slate for whoever is sworn in in January 2017... and they have performed their Constitutional responsibility. Who will be POTUS in 2017?? Trump has a sister who is a sitting judge. It's now being rumored that she would be his appointment to the Court. She leans far left and is a "woman's rights" activist. Would you rather see a moderate appointed by Obama or a leftist activist appointed by Trump? There is significant political "gamesmanship" going to be played re this SCOTUS vacancy. If the Senate would hold hearings, bring up valid reasons to deny the confirmation... other than simply because it is this President's choice... they would make far better political fodder than to be yet again tagged "obstructionists".
There is ALWAYS political gamesmanship in Supreme Court appointments. Always, and it doesn't matter which political parties are involved. There is also plenty of precedence for the Senate refusing to confirm presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, and in taking long periods of time, even longer than eleven months. Democrats are quick to point out that Ronald Reagan's choice of Justice Anthony Kennedy was approved during his last term in office, but they fail to mention that Reagan's first choice (Robert Bork) was turned down after a lengthy hearing, and that his second choice (Douglas Ginsburg) was forced to withdraw his name from nomination. That seat was left vacant for seven months before a Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's third choice, who turned out to be more of a liberal than a conservative. When Justice Fortas stepped down in 1969, it was a full year before his successor was confirmed, and it was a Democrat Senate that refused to confirm President Nixon’s first two choices for the seat. The last time that a justice was both nominated and confirmed in an election year was in 1940, but President Roosevelt’s party controlled the Senate at the time. It's funny how Democrats get all excited over things when the shoe is on the other foot. Out of respect for the dead, I believe that an eleven-month period of mourning would be appropriate before even considering a replacement, and if either Bernie or Hillary are elected, I think we can leave the seat vacant for another four years.