Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is dead

[Cerin]

I would ask, when have Democrats ever demonstrated the same determined unwillingness to work with a duly elected Republican President, that Republicans have demonstrated with Pres. Obama? I would require some kind of evidence-based argument if I were to entertain the notion that Democrats would disrespect the constitution and the position of the Presidency to the degree that Republicans have done by flatly declaring that it isn't this President's place to do what the constitution plainly gives him the right and responsibility to do. Additionally, I would ask, when have Democrats ever shown the kind of chutzpah, determination, zeal and unfied front as an opposition, that the Republicans routinely have shown in the past three decades? I would require some kind of evidentiary argument to support the suggestion that Democrats would behave as badly as Republicans are doing.

I would say that in the circumstances you describe, Voronwë, Democrats might show a little more than the usual amount of spine and vote down a nominee in the Roberts/Alito ballpark. But I do not believe the Democrats would show such utter contempt for the country, the process and the President as to flatly declare -- no hearings will be held, this vacancy will be filled by the next President.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm sure they would fight it. I'm not sure they would refuse to even have the fight.

I recognize that it is idle speculation, since it is not the case, and won't the case, but I do wonder. Based on comments made in the past, I'm not sure.

In any event, I think that Garland is an excellent choice and I hope he does get in eventually. True he is not as liberal as some progressives want, and is neither a woman nor a minority (ironically, for the purposes of the Supreme Court being a Protestant Christian would be a minority; he would just add to the current mix of all Catholics and Jews). He is, however, a brilliant legal mind, and just as importantly, famously collegial, and I think he would make the Court a better institution.

If Clinton (or Sanders, in the at this point unlikely event that he wins the nomination) wins the general election, I'm sure there will be a lot of talk among liberals to have the Democrats in the Senate block his nomination during the lame duck period in order to get a "better" (e.g., more liberal) choice in. I think that would be a terrible mistake.

[Primula Baggins]

I can't imagine that. But isn't there some tradition that would lead Garland to withdraw, or at least offer to, with a change in administration? Whether or now the new president would want him as the nominee, it's the current president's privilege to nominate, is it not?

I agree that he would be a good addition to the court. In reading about him since the nomination, I've been struck by how well-liked he is on all sides—several articles have had to include the disclaimer, "We have been friends for many years." And I was struck by his emotional and, well, sweet Rose Garden speech at his introduction.

[Cerin]

That would be a very radical stance, as there would be no legitimate reason to block his nomination. It would be just as bad as what the Republicans are doing here. Is there a Democrat holding office who would be willing to disrespect this President like that, on his way out the door? I don't think so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Prim, his Rose Garden speech was sweet, wasn't it?

He would certainly withdraw if he was not confirmed before President Obama left office in January. But there would be plenty of time to confirm him after the election and before President Clinton the Second took office.

[CosmicBob]

If Clinton (or Sanders, in the at this point unlikely event that he wins the nomination) wins the general election, I'm sure there will be a lot of talk among liberals to have the Democrats in the Senate block his nomination during the lame duck period in order to get a "better" (e.g., more liberal) choice in. I think that would be a terrible mistake.

I think that the Democrats could easily use the argument that "the people have spoken" and elected Clinton (or Sanders), so they will put forth the current Republican stance about waiting until the next President takes office to confirm any nomination. And while the Republicans would undoubtedly complain endlessly, how could they justify their complaints? Suddenly Garland becomes acceptable?

I think he's too old, regardless of his legal qualifications. But I am thinking politically rather than legally.

[Cerin]

How could the Democrats put forth a stance later, that they are currently attacking as irresponsible? It would expose them as shameless hypocrites.

[Inanna]

In line with the whole diversity angle, I propose that the next nominee be from a public school:

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1458241487.257918.jpg (85.86 KiB) Viewed 11550 times

Source: NY Times


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Impenitent]

How could the Democrats put forth a stance later, that they are currently attacking as irresponsible? It would expose them as shameless hypocrites.

As a cynical observer, I'd say shameless hypocrisy is common currency in politics of all complexions.

[Inanna]

I am a little disappointed that Srinivasan isn't the nominee. Not for the obvious reasons, but because then Trump would insult Indians and that would finally show my mother what an ass Trump is.

[CosmicBob]

I am a little disappointed that Srinivasan isn't the nominee. Not for the obvious reasons, but because then Trump would insult Indians and that would finally show my mother what an ass Trump is.

I'm sure he'll get around to insulting Indians.

[Dave_LF]

Here's what redstate has to say:

Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer. Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.

Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.

In fact, if I were the Republicans, my main concern right now would be that Barack Obama would withdraw Garland’s nomination today. The fact that Merrick Garland still exists as an option right now is a gift that should not be squandered.

The calculus has changed – confirm Merrick Garland before it is too late.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But McConnell is not budging, and has in fact firmly gotten behind Trump as the nominee.

[yovargas]

I'm surprised I hadn't heard about this until now:

Sen. McCain Says Republicans Will Block All Court Nominations If Clinton Wins

I find that so full on despicable that I've decided I'm straight-ticket voting against Republicans 100% regardless of whatever. The GOP has lost it's G.D. mind.

[Cerin]

It seems to me they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. They might have done better had they approved Garland, then they've done with the 4-4 rulings.

But I believe the Constitution doesn't mandate a certain number of Supreme Court judges, does it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, it does not, and there have been as few as five and as many as ten, although nine has been the number since the civil war. But basic common sense dictated that it be an odd number, for reasons that have been obvious over the past few months.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Maria]

I find that so full on despicable that I've decided I'm straight-ticket voting against Republicans 100% regardless of whatever. The GOP has lost it's G.D. mind.

I'm with you there, yov. I usually do my homework on all candidates for office, and choose the one I think is best for the job regardless of party. This year, I'm going to just vote straight Democrat. Without doing the straight party option. That's prone to error, I hear. I'll just vote individually for Democrats down the whole ballot.