Scalia Dead.

[Cackalacky]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NY Times Editorial Board, 1987: Party That Controls Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’<a href="https://t.co/ivpniD4A93">https://t.co/ivpniD4A93</a> <a href="https://t.co/G6dB7cj6IH">pic.twitter.com/G6dB7cj6IH</a></p>— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/699944204638818304">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Resist=! Refuse to do your job.

 

[woolybug25]

Resist=! Refuse to do your job.

I feel like you and I keep saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over again... only to have someone new pop up with the same argument. It's exhausting.

 

[connor_in]

PR? I'd say they are committing a dereliction of duty.

How is it a dereliction of duty if it hasn't happened yet?

You say you won't file your taxes by 4/15, should they come and arrest you now? Until the action/inaction comes to pass you cannot be guilty of dereliction.

 

[wizards8507]

How is it a dereliction of duty if it hasn't happened yet?

You say you won't file your taxes by 4/15, should they come and arrest you now? Until the action/inaction comes to pass you cannot be guilty of dereliction.

Not even. In that analogy, you're not saying "I won't file my taxes," you're saying "I shouldn't file my taxes."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Well yes it is a dereliction... they don't care who the nominee is. They said so two hours after Scalia died and its not the same thing as the article you posted for several reasons.
1. No appointee has been named. They will filibuster regardless and just because. The article is about Alito, who had his opportunity to be confirmed.
2. They have no logical grounds to oppose Obama's appointment as they have no idea who it will be at this point. They have preemptively derelicted their sworn duties. Obama, as a highlighted had legitimate criticism of Alito whom he knew would go through the process as opposed to some nameless liberal boogeyman right now.
3. He was responding to his constituents based on their backlash at Alito being named an appointment as opposed to carte blanche stating they WILL NO CONFIRM ANYONE OBAMA APPOINTS.

That article really has no similarities as nothing like this has been done before. For the trillionth time.

Do you really think that the Senate would refuse to confirm anyone that Obama nominates, regardless of who it is? I don't. If he nominated, say, Robert George, they'd confirm him with record speed.

I think McConnell's statement: (1) assumed that Obama wouldn't nominate a conservative to replace Scalia; (2) confirmed the obvious in that the Senate wouldn't confirm any non-conservative replacement for Scalia; and (3) thus, Obama shouldn't bother nominating anyone.

 

[pkt77242]

Do you really think that the Senate would refuse to confirm anyone that Obama nominates, regardless of who it is? I don't. If he nominated, say, Robert George, they'd confirm him with record speed.

I think McConnell's statement: (1) assumed that Obama wouldn't nominate a conservative to replace Scalia; (2) that the Senate wouldn't confirm any non-conservative replacement for Scalia; and (3) thus, Obama shouldn't bother nominating anyone.

Is that really how the confirmation has worked in the past? Why would Obama nominate a Conservative? I can see Obama nominating a moderate (someone like Sri Srinivasan) who the Senate already confirmed 97-0 to the DC Court of Appeals. So what would be the reason to not approve him? This idea that only a Conservative is acceptable to replace Scalia is pretty nuts IMO.

 

[GoIrish41]

Is that really how the confirmation has worked in the past? Why would Obama nominate a Conservative? I can see Obama nominating a moderate (someone like Sri Srinivasan) who the Senate already confirmed 97-0 to the DC Court of Appeals. So what would be the reason to not approve him? This idea that only a Conservative is acceptable to replace Scalia is pretty nuts IMO.

Agreed. You remember when Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 filled vacancies with liberals? Me neither.

 

[connor_in]

Resist=! Refuse to do your job.

Isn't this the wiki line describing Harry Reid?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Is that really how the confirmation has worked in the past?

Since Bork, yes.

Why would Obama nominate a Conservative?

He wouldn't, which is why McConnell's statement is a pretty obvious description of the status quo.

I can see Obama nominating a moderate (someone like Sri Srinivasan) who the Senate already confirmed 97-0 to the DC Court of Appeals. So what would be the reason to not approve him?

See the Douthat article I shared on the last page. Srinivasan would give the Progressives a SCOTUS majority for the first time in decades, which would all but guarantee the rollback of those few judicial victories conservatives have managed over that period. Now that SCOTUS is the frontline in the culture wars, focusing on qualifications and procedure is totally disingenuous.

This idea that only a Conservative is acceptable to replace Scalia is pretty nuts IMO.

SCOTUS is one of the last places where conservative causes have had a reasonable shot at victory over the last few decades. If Scalia isn't replaced by another conservative, the future looks very bleak for them. This is a hill they're willing to die on.

 

[pkt77242]

I think what Happened at the end of the Reagan administration with Supreme Court nominees should be the precedent used here. If Obama nominated someone as far left as Bork was to the right, I would not be angry if/when that person was voted down. If Obama nominates a moderate to slightly left of center (just as Kennedy was rather moderate but slightly right of center) and they are well qualified, then there is no reason that the person shouldn't pass. People talk about Bork but what they don't talk about is that Kennedy then was confirmed 97-0.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think what Happened at the end of the Reagan administration with Supreme Court nominees should be the precedent used here. If Obama nominated someone as far left as Bork was to the right, I would not be angry if/when that person was voted down. If Obama nominates a moderate to slightly left of center (just as Kennedy was rather moderate but slightly right of center) and they are well qualified, then there is no reason that the person shouldn't pass. People talk about Bork but what they don't talk about is that Kennedy then was confirmed 97-0.

From that Douthat article I posted yesterday:

Since 1968, the year that the modern right-of-center political majority was born, Republican presidents have made twelve appointments to the Supreme Court; Democratic presidents have made just four. Yet those twelve Republican appointments, while they did push the court rightward, never delivered the kind of solid 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority that one might have expected to emerge. Instead, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Harry Blackmun all went on to become outspoken liberals, Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy went on to author decisions sweeping away the nation’s abortion laws and redefining marriage, Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy both ratified Roe v. Wade — and so on down a longer list of disappointments and betrayals.

Meanwhile, none of the four recent Democratic appointees, whether “moderate” or liberal, have moved meaningfully rightward during their tenures. On the crucial cases of the last decade (including the cases Stern lists) they’ve reliably voted as a bloc. The most genuinely unpredictable of the four, Stephen Breyer, is basically crusading to eliminate the death penalty already. The more moderate of President Obama’s two appointments, Elena Kagan, has voted with the more liberal Sonia Sotamayor more reliably (especially in 5-4 decisions) than, say, Scalia voted with John Roberts. And the court’s only actual swing vote remains, of course, a Republican appointee.

So telling Republicans that they should accept a moderate liberal lest they risk a real liberal is likely to inspire a bitter chuckle, since from the perspective of conservatives they risk at least a moderate liberal in practically every appointment anyway. (Including the last Republican president’s, since most fairly or not many conservatives feel they dodged a bullet with Harriet Miers.) And if you’re starting from that kind of disadvantage, you simply can’t afford to throw away even a chance at appointing a real conservative in the name of a play-it-safe compromise: If there’s one thing conservatives have learned from forty years of judicial appointment battles, it’s that when you compromise, you lose.

Further, you lose the most on the issues that animate the party’s socially-conservative voting base — as opposed to donors, think-tankers and the Chamber of Commerce —because it’s social issues where time and again the elite consensus has tugged Republican appointees leftward.

So it’s not just that conservatives have good reasons to be more skeptical than Stern that even a “moderate” Obama appointee would ultimately hesitate to overturn (or at least carefully undercut) some of the precedents he cites; it’s that on certain issues they have extremely well-grounded anxieties. Tell the average conservative voter that they should accept an Obama appointee in the hopes of preserving Citizens United and McCutcheon, and they’re likely to stare blankly and then shrug when you explain the campaign-finance law implications. But tell them that, despite having a fighting chance to replace him with a conservative, they should trade their great champion and bulwark on abortion, marriage and religious liberty — to borrow from one eulogy, “the mighty rearguard in our long and slow defeat” — for an Obama appointee at a moment when social liberalism is ascendant and the legal and cultural consequences of same-sex marriage are beginning to ripple across the country and the courts … well, they’ll look at you like you’re insane.

And they would be right to do so. There is some gambling involved in resisting an Obama pick, certainly; there’s some chance of a worse outcome overall. But given the plausible hope of replacing the court’s most important conservative with another conservative, accepting a supposedly-moderate liberal without an electoral fight would be remembered forever as the G.O.P.’s greatest betrayal of social conservatives, its final surrender in the culture wars.

 

[pkt77242]

Since Bork, yes.



He wouldn't, which is why McConnell's statement is a pretty obvious description of the status quo.



See the Douthat article I shared on the last page. Srinivasan would give the Progressives a SCOTUS majority for the first time in decades, which would all but guarantee the rollback of those few judicial victories conservatives have managed over that period. Now that SCOTUS is the frontline in the culture wars, focusing on qualifications and procedure is totally disingenuous.



SCOTUS is one of the last places where conservative causes have had a reasonable shot at victory over the last few decades. If Scalia isn't replaced by another conservative, the future looks very bleak for them. This is a hill they're willing to die on.

I just posted something that kind of pertains to this. But I will just add Bork was an ideological extreme, and I would expect that if Obama nominated someone as far left as Bork was to the right that they would be voted down. If Obama nominates someone like Kennedy (who leans conservative but isn't far to the right), and they are well qualified then the Senate would be taking this to a whole new level.

Also what makes you think that Sri is so progressive? He worked in the office of the Solicitor general under Bush, and clerked for two judges that were nominated by Reagan. Yes he worked in the Obama administration as well (principal deputy solicitor general) but he hardly seems to be "progressive", more like a moderate.

 

[pkt77242]

From that Douthat article I posted yesterday:

Again is that reason to not confirm a well qualified moderate. Don't bring up Bork because while he was well qualified he sure as Hell wasn't moderate. Kennedy was the moderate and he got confirmed 97-0. So again when Bush gets to put Conservatives on the Court, Reagan got to put Conservatives on the court but Obama shouldn't get to put a moderate on the court?


ETA: Just as Bush and Reagan being elected pushed the court right (because Elections matter), the same thing might happen under Obama. Again nothing shocking there.

 

[wizards8507]

ETA: Just as Bush and Reagan being elected pushed the court right (because Elections matter), the same thing might happen under Obama. Again nothing shocking there.

Yes, but Presidential elections aren't the only ones that matter. Congressional elections also matter. Everyone is acting like this power is a sole power of the Executive, with the Senate simply there to rubber stamp in all but the most eggregious situations. That's not the case. The Executive and the Legislature are equal branches of government, and it shouldn't be presupposed that Obama's will is superior to that of the Senate.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Again is that reason to not confirm a well qualified moderate. Don't bring up Bork because while he was well qualified he sure as Hell wasn't moderate. Kennedy was the moderate and he got confirmed 97-0. So again when Bush gets to put Conservatives on the Court, Reagan got to put Conservatives on the court but Obama shouldn't get to put a moderate on the court?

ETA: Just as Bush and Reagan being elected pushed the court right (because Elections matter), the same thing might happen under Obama. Again nothing shocking there.

That argument makes perfect sense as far as playground fairness goes: "You had your turn, and now we get to have ours." It makes zero sense when you consider what's at stake for conservatives after Scalia's death.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, but Presidential elections aren't the only ones that matter. Congressional elections also matter. Everyone is acting like this power is a sole power of the Executive, with the Senate simply there to rubber stamp in all but the most eggregious situations. That's not the case. The Executive and the Legislature are equal branches of government, and it shouldn't be presupposed that Obama's will is superior to that of the Senate.

Do you even read posts? I agree that if Obama nominates a far left liberal that the Senate will and probably should (because politics) shoot them down. But if Obama nominates a moderate like Sri, then what is the reason to not confirm him? No one is asking for a rubber stamping, they are asking for a fair confirmation hearing.

 

[pkt77242]

That argument makes perfect sense as far as playground fairness goes: "You had your turn, and now we get to have ours." It makes zero sense when you consider what's at stake for conservatives after Scalia's death.

That is a bullshit argument though. So when a liberal justice leaves the Democrats should act the same way and refuse to approve anyone other than a liberal to replace them? If so our country is already fucked.


ETA: So the supreme court should only be Conservative?

 

[RDU Irish]

So Republicans have set the tone that they aren't even going to negotiate and Obama is not in position to put up as conservative/clean of a prospective replacement as possible in order to even have a chance.

Most likely - Obama puts of a flaming lib first and makes them shoot it down so he can cry OBSTRUCTION before trying again with some modestly less liberal folks. I don't believe for a minute that Obama is going to try and make this work.

 

[RDU Irish]

That is a bullshit argument though. So when a liberal justice leaves the Democrats should act the same way and refuse to approve anyone other than a liberal to replace them? If so our country is already fucked.


ETA: So the supreme court should only be Conservative?

If they have to run it through a Democrat dominated Senate then obviously (to most) you are going to have to deal.

 

[pkt77242]

If they have to run it through a Democrat dominated Senate then obviously (to most) you are going to have to deal.

Have you been reading the past 10 posts or so? The point that I have been making is that if Obama nominates a hard left liberal, I understand the Senate not confirming but if Obama nominates a moderate (like Sri) and he still can't get confirmed then it is bullshit.

My point is that the Senate shouldn't be demanding that you give them their perfect candidate. Again some compromise is good but demanding to get a replacement as Conservative as Scalia isn't compromise.

 

[RDU Irish]

Have you been reading the past 10 posts or so? The point that I have been making is that if Obama nominates a hard left liberal, I understand the Senate not confirming but if Obama nominates a moderate (like Sri) and he still can't get confirmed then it is bullshit.

My point is that the Senate shouldn't be demanding that you give them their perfect candidate. Again some compromise is good but demanding to get a replacement as Conservative as Scalia isn't compromise.

And your blinders are keeping you from seeing the counterpoint of UNTIL THAT MODERATE IS STONEWALLED yours is a moot point.

The only option (if Obama actually wants to get something done for the country and not for the rhetoric surrounding the election) is to put up the most moderate to conservative person he can. Also known as calling their bluff. My bet is that he nominates someone like Bill Ayers or worse and whines about being shut down in hopes of damaging Rs leading into November. Actually, probably won't nominate anyone - that would be even more pathetic.

You strike me as the worst poker player on the planet "WTF!!!! You can't bet like you have pocket aces every hand!!!"

 

[NDgradstudent]

Again is that reason to not confirm a well qualified moderate. Don't bring up Bork because while he was well qualified he sure as Hell wasn't moderate. Kennedy was the moderate and he got confirmed 97-0. So again when Bush gets to put Conservatives on the Court, Reagan got to put Conservatives on the court but Obama shouldn't get to put a moderate on the court?

What is this stuff about being a "moderate"? What does that even mean? Scalia was confirmed by a 97-0 vote too, it doesn't mean he was "moderate."

And who decides whether a candidate is moderate or not? I don't think, for example, that it is moderate to think that the Constitution forbids states from banning this ghastly procedure, but any Obama nominee is going to believe that.

SCOTUS is one of the last places where conservative causes have had a reasonable shot at victory over the last few decades. If Scalia isn't replaced by another conservative, the future looks very bleak for them. This is a hill they're willing to die on.

What "conservative" causes has the Supreme Court advanced? The "federalism revolution" of the 90s was a joke- federalism is dead, and that was just grasping at meaningless straws. Getting rid of spending restrictions in campaigns is not, in my view, a mainstream "conservative" cause, but let's just suppose I concede that one. What else is there? I can't think of any other examples.

On the other hand, I can name off the top of my head a dozen left-wing causes the Court has advanced in that period. The Court follows elite opinion. Elite opinion is basically left-wing. The fact that there are four Justices who consistently resist this tendency is a minor miracle.

 

[pkt77242]

And your blinders are keeping you from seeing the counterpoint of UNTIL THAT MODERATE IS STONEWALLED yours is a moot point.

The only option (if Obama actually wants to get something done for the country and not for the rhetoric surrounding the election) is to put up the most moderate to conservative person he can. Also known as calling their bluff. My bet is that he nominates someone like Bill Ayers or worse and whines about being shut down in hopes of damaging Rs leading into November. Actually, probably won't nominate anyone - that would be even more pathetic.

You strike me as the worst poker player on the planet "WTF!!!! You can't bet like you have pocket aces every hand!!!"

What about Republicans doing what is right for the country and not being blustering dicks. Also if you think that Obama won't nominate anyone you need to pull your head out of the sand. Also if you truly believe that any Obama nominee who is moderate will get a fair hearing then I got some ocean front property here in AZ for you.

 

[connor_in]

What about Republicans doing what is right for the country and not being blustering dicks. Also if you think that Obama won't nominate anyone you need to pull your head out of the sand. Also if you truly believe that any Obama nominee who is moderate will get a fair hearing then I got some ocean front property here in AZ for you.

Quick question...what is right for the country? Who decides what is actually right? Both sides have spent many years being blustering dicks in someone's view.

 

[wizards8507]

Quick question...what is right for the country? Who decides what is actually right? Both sides have spent many years being blustering dicks in someone's view.

They decided what was right for the country in 1789. They formed a core set of rules and principles common to all Americans. Now, anyone who believes in that document is an "extremist."

 

[pkt77242]

Quick question...what is right for the country? Who decides what is actually right? Both sides have spent many years being blustering dicks in someone's view.

First things first

Both sides are full of blustering dicks.

Next
My point is that if they refuse to give a fair hearing to a relatively moderate candidate then they are putting party before country which is bad. Now opposing a super liberal nominee is understandable. Think of the difference between Bork and Kennedy. Bork got, well, borked but Kennedy went through 97-0.

 

[pkt77242]

What is this stuff about being a "moderate"? What does that even mean? Scalia was confirmed by a 97-0 vote too, it doesn't mean he was "moderate."

And who decides whether a candidate is moderate or not? I don't think, for example, that it is moderate to think that the Constitution forbids states from banning this ghastly procedure, but any Obama nominee is going to believe that.



What "conservative" causes has the Supreme Court advanced? The "federalism revolution" of the 90s was a joke- federalism is dead, and that was just grasping at meaningless straws. Getting rid of spending restrictions in campaigns is not, in my view, a mainstream "conservative" cause, but let's just suppose I concede that one. What else is there? I can't think of any other examples.

On the other hand, I can name off the top of my head a dozen left-wing causes the Court has advanced in that period. The Court follows elite opinion. Elite opinion is basically left-wing. The fact that there are four Justices who consistently resist this tendency is a minor miracle.

Awesome, so you are arguing that the Senate should confirm a justice just as liberal as Scalia was conservative 97-0. Thanks.

 

[pkt77242]

Also go read Cack's post on the last page, he covers how Republicans have been screwing around with Obama's judicial appointees. They won't let him fill seats on the DC Appeals court because he might "stack the court" though Bush and Reagan sure as hell got to appoint more people to it. The fact that the Conservatives on here can't see that just tells me that they don't want to see it. Willful ignorance. Pure obstructionism.

 

[connor_in]

First things first

Both sides are full of blustering dicks.

Next
My point is that if they refuse to give a fair hearing to a relatively moderate candidate then they are putting party before country which is bad. Now opposing a super liberal nominee is understandable. Think of the difference between Bork and Kennedy. Bork got, well, borked but Kennedy went through 97-0.

but neither side has done anything yet except spout off...there are reports that McConnell is already softening his stand potentially...so you can list off any might you want (as you keep doing with your possible occurrence) and argue it but there is no there there until there is

 

[wizards8507]

First things first

Both sides are full of blustering dicks.

Next
My point is that if they refuse to give a fair hearing to a relatively moderate candidate then they are putting party before country which is bad. Now opposing a super liberal nominee is understandable. Think of the difference between Bork and Kennedy. Bork got, well, borked but Kennedy went through 97-0.

1. That's a big "if". Maybe wait until we see who Obama nominates. IF that nominee is moderate and IF the Republicans refuse to give him or her a fair hearing, then we'll chat. I think it's quite clear that the Republican assumption is that Obama will not nominate a moderate and that's the basis on which they're positioning their opposition. Frankly, I think Obama nominating a moderate is a much bigger "if" than whether the Republicans would give a moderate a fair hearing.

2. The country isn't going to hell if there's a 8-person court for awhile.

3. If you're an honest-to-goodness conservative, then voting against the confirmation of a moderate-to-liberal justice is not putting party before country because an honest-to-goodness conservative believes that a conservative justice is the best thing for the country. In fact, I'd argue that a conservative acting in such a manner is actually putting country before party, because he'd be standing on the principles that he believes are in the best interest of the nation in a way that will probably get the party skewered in the media.

but neither side has done anything yet except spout off...there are reports that McConnell is already softening his stand potentially...so you can list off any might you want (as you keep doing with your possible occurrence) and argue it but there is no there there until there is

Right, this. It's like saying "if my wife turned into a magical walrus, I'd punch her in the face" and then I get arrested for domestic violence.