Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm responding to other posters in the thread. They're going off topic. /shrug
Also, Obamacare is relevant to the discussion as SCOTUS has ruled on it.
Not true. As an example, I mention the November election of the Senate and you injected Obamacare with a lengthy anecdote about your "friend", deductibles, etc. then added more, with links.
I turned on CNN just to see this. Sad but with 70 year olds in the Supreme Court, you have to expect that. I wonder what this means to the court if there are nomination(s) prior to November.
Not a chance. When Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to fill Earl Warren's seat the nomination stalled in committee. And that was when we had a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Scalia was a great legal mind and a proponent of the use of the actual language of a statute to construe its meaning. He will be sorely missed.
I heard about the 1968 election fiasco with Warren's seat when watching on CNN. I think the issue here is Warren was merely retiring rather dying while in office. He was able to still vote. Now you'll have issues of at best an eight person decision. To avoid deadlocking, we may need to see a justice recluse them-self even if they don't need to (something Scalia couldn't do.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
A lot of pending Supreme Court rulings just changed.
We'll be seeing some 4-4 decisions being issued now this term. Many of those cases have already been argued, and the Justices had taken preliminary votes on their positions and were writing and exchanging opinions among each other. No opinions can be issued with input from a non-Justice, and Antonin Scalia is no longer a Justice. In fact, there might've been a slate of decisions that were to be released this coming week that now will need to have their opinions rewritten.
A number of upcoming cases likely just change - the abortion case out of Texas, the union case out of California, the Texas case wherein the state wants to apportion legislative districts on the basis of eligible voters instead of all persons therein, the case over the accommodation to religious institutions regarding the ACA's birth control mandate, and the immigration case out of (again) Texas).
In the case of 4-4 decisions, the decision of the lower court stands. However, such decisions will only be binding throughout the that circuit. For example, if the USSC reviews a Fifth Circuit decision and the review results in a 4-4 deadlock, the Fifth Circuit ruling stands - but, in the case of the Fifth, it would only affect the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This results in a situation - where constitutional law varies from one Circuit to another - is known as a circuit split. The Supreme Court generally dislikes circuit splits and often seeks to review cases such that their ruling will result in a uniform, nationwide standard being established. But they do occur.
I think this is a bit of an ace in the hole to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. Republicans can only hurt themselves by pulling a Mike Lee. Despite the precedent that is in Lee's favor, this can tie up the court well into a year and a half from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis
I'm sure the Republicans will have no intention of trying to legislate from the bench
Except when it comes to homosexuals and abortions. Oh come on, like Republicans don't have a good track record with homosexuals and abortions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
Arguably the most conservative justice dies with a Democrat still in the White House and a Republican Senate. I wonder if Obama will even nominate a replacement before the election?
Both parties will use the vacancy to gin up turnout for their side in the general election, saying that even if you don't like the Party nominee, the fate of the direction of the Supreme Court will depend on the Presidential winner and the composition of the United States Senate.
So much for a low turnout election.
I don't think the court vacancy will bring out the votes. I do agree that it will be used but it wont bring out votes in it of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
oh you bet he will.. just so he can wine non stop from now till election days about how evil Republicans are...
Well if the Mike Lees of the world stonewall it, it doesn't make Obama look like a bad guy at all unless he starts pushing for one within the next week or so.
It's supposed to be a straight forward process in every nomination including cabinet members, I guess you missed the Loretta Lynch hearings in January.
First of all, that was for AG, not the SCOTUS. Additionally she was vetted more because the Senate did not want another lawless and politically biased AG like we had with Holder.
Furthermore, your attempt to destract from my post/point is noted. How about addressing how the (D's) "Borked" a SCOTUS nomination of one of the most qualified nominees.
Not true. As an example, I mention the November election of the Senate and you injected Obamacare with a lengthy anecdote about your "friend", deductibles, etc. then added more, with links.
SCOTUS has in fact ruled on Obamacare. The topic of the thread is Scalia's death and the impact of a new SCOTUS appointee. You opined on Senate elections. I countered with an issue on which SCOTUS has ruled and how people have been impacted by that.
First of all, that was for AG, not the SCOTUS. Additionally she was vetted more because the Senate did not want another lawless and politically biased AG like we had with Holder.
Furthermore, your attempt to destract from my post/point is noted. How about addressing how the (D's) "Borked" a SCOTUS nomination of one of the most qualified nominees.
`
The Bork nomination was not until July and the vote was no. Simple as that, the vote was no. They did find a compromise.
SCOTUS has in fact ruled on Obamacare. The topic of the thread is Scalia's death and the impact of a new SCOTUS appointee. You opined on Senate elections. I countered with an issue on which SCOTUS has ruled and how people have been impacted by that.
Are you going to take this thread into every Supreme Court ruling in history? Because maybe you could start that thread and leave the rest of us to discuss replacing Scalia?
A different left wing extremist or two already posted that attempt at a joke. Did the DNC circulate an email? Try a new thought, thanks.
No, but when was the last time CT spoke from the bench in a court case? It's literally been years. He's played silent partner to Scalia. Maybe now he'll speak up on his own, or follow whatever Sam Alito does.
First of all, that was for AG, not the SCOTUS. Additionally she was vetted more because the Senate did not want another lawless and politically biased AG like we had with Holder.
Furthermore, your attempt to destract from my post/point is noted. How about addressing how the (D's) "Borked" a SCOTUS nomination of one of the most qualified nominees.
`
It's a presidential nomination regardless of the office, the right wing has taken it to the next level the last few years with their frustration whether a Supreme Court Justice, AG or DOD, take your pick. This debate over the replacement will be opposed regardless of the qualifications and it will be taken to a new level by the GOP, watch.
Loretta Lynch is a perfect example of their dysfunction and that was just the AG, this will be historic or do you feel differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh come on, like Republicans don't have a good track record with homosexuals and abortions.
