Filling a vacancy in the SCotUS

[Tchocky]

In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.


The same situation would likely apply when this year’s Senate session comes to an end, and the senators take a recess before the next Congress assembles.


The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there. The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is...urt-an-option/

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Sri Srinivasan from the DC Appeals court is one name I've heard.

so have I, he is on the short list and was approved by the Senate 97-0 to his current posting, I believe, 3 years ago.

President Obama is still President for another 11 months so he will appoint someone, preferably someone non controversial like judge Srinivasan. This way he throws the ball in McConnell's court and can spend the next year accusing HIM of playing politics if he does not move on it.

[Aktungbby]

It will be interesting to watch. No, actually it will be a painful reminder of how something that should be apolitical is, in fact, very political.

Actually, Obama, a veteran of the Senate, and having put two ladies into the court can afford to slide a little. With two ladies on the Supreme Court;55 judges to the Appeals courts; and 264 judges to the District courts... there are only 39 nominations in 'limbo' including the upcoming Supreme one. POTUS O is hardly losing on points and has left his mark for decades to come. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama The peculiar quasi-sacred nature of the Supreme Court(no packing allowed FDR etc) will allow him to consider his 'lame duck' status against a Republican two-house legislature; He will select a highly qualified Republican candidate acceptable to all. The nature of the sacred court is such that a candidate, once seated, literally "becomes' God's archbishop...not the King's" to misquote Becket. No president has control of a lifelong appointee and party no longer applies. A few presidents have thus regretted their appointments...

Generally speaking, nominees who have evolved in unanticipated ways did not have federal court backgrounds," said David Garrow, a Supreme Court historian at Emory University. "It's a response to the pressures of Washington, with the Supreme Court presenting legal questions they did not have to confront before."
They include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, two Eisenhower appointees who from the 1950s to the 1970s led the court in assaulting racial segregation and expanding individual rights against the government. Warren was a former Republican governor of California; Brennan, a New Jersey state court judge, was coveted partly as a Catholic.
Eisenhower later said the two were among his biggest presidential mistakes.
Other "disappointments," according to historians, were Harry Blackmun, Nixon's law-and-order choice who penned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision making abortion a constitutional right. He later opposed the death penalty.

Other notables: [QUOTE] Some of the Supreme Court justices who defied expectations of the presidents who appointed them: Oliver Wendell Holmes, appointed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, sided with businesses and voted against the president in a case challenging the Sherman Antitrust Act. Roosevelt reportedly said of Holmes afterward, ``Out of a banana I could carve a firmer backbone.''
Felix Frankfurter, appointed by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, became a strong advocate of judicial restraint, clashing with liberal members who sought an active court role in protecting minorities and monitoring fairness in the political process, such as legislative redistricting.
Earl Warren, appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, presided as chief justice over a court that assaulted racial segregation, outlawed school prayer and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches.
William Brennan, appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, became the liberal architect of the Warren Court's decisions, and later secured majorities supporting affirmative action and overturning flag-burning laws.
John Paul Stevens, appointed by Republican Gerald Ford in 1975, became a leader of the court's more liberal bloc in pushing a strict line between church and state, greater federal authority over states and protecting abortion rights.
Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1988, was a key swing vote in decisions promoting gay rights, barring prayer at school graduation and outlawing the death penalty for people who committed crimes as juveniles. David H. Souter, appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush in 1990, generally sides with the court's more liberal members in promoting abortion rights, upholding affirmative action and limiting use of the death penalty
[/QUOTE] In short Obama knows to 'throw the Senate a bone' and focus on his Presidential library on this one; any justice nominated will go his own way ...anyway! It's ultimate judicial perk!

[Oberon]

Maybe he'll put in Anita Hill.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Maybe he'll put in Anita Hill.

Is Trump qualified in law?

[Subnuts]

Oh nooooes....

Obama Compiles Shortlist of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors to Replace Scalia

[Bubblehead1980]

The next nominee needs to have a record reflecting this, the only truly legitimate view of the constitution.

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things." -Antonin Scalia

Promise you not one person Obama would consider nominating holds this legitimate view, the way the founders looked at it and meant for it to be interpreted. Instead, he will nominate some "living" constitution moron who will "find" things that do not exist to justify their agenda.

For that reason and that reason only, I am okay with them not confirming whatever pseudo marxist, anti white(Sotomayor for example) , class warrior who will subvert our rights even more.

Obama has shown can not be trusted.

Should Hillary or Bernie win, well guess will be stuck but hopefully Trump or Cruz are in and will nominate a real Justice.

[Oberon]

[Tchocky]

The lawyer is back!

EDIT - How the hell can the Senate be trusted!? We havent't repealed the 17th Amendment!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

The next nominee needs to have a record reflecting this, the only truly legitimate view of the constitution.

I know this is futile of me, but I have to at least make the attempt.

There are several schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They all have their advantages and disadvantages; their proponents and opponents. None is more "legitimate" than any other.

It is natural for people to prefer schools that agree with their opinions, but that does not make any particular school more or less legitimate.

If there were only one way to interpret the Constitution, we would not need a panel of judges.

It should be noted that even among Conservatives there are differing opinion on which school's method is appropriate. Just like there are differing opinions among Liberals. And of course us Moderates frequently disagree with either side's opinions.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Should Hillary or Bernie win, well guess will be stuck but hopefully Trump or Cruz are in and will nominate a real Justice.

Ted Cruz is an definitely a Constitutional originalist until he gets to where he probably is not natural-born citizen.

[Mr Quatro]

Judge Judy would be a good choice for the left or right wingers.

Most college students already think she is on the Supreme Court anyway

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are several schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They all have their advantages and disadvantages; their proponents and opponents. None is more "legitimate" than any other.

Well... whilst you're dealing with the 'penumbra' of the oft interpreted document I'll deal with the corona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The lawyer is back!

EDIT - How the hell can the Senate be trusted!? We havent't repealed the 17th Amendment!

I never went away, just often too busy to comment on here.This thread piqued my interest. Lawyer? Not yet, I graduate this spring and take the bar not long after. Mock me all you want, I've worked hard and had some serious life obstacles last couple of years.The detractors said I would not make it and I have. Really, back when I first started law school I made a somewhat arrogant statement in this forum regarding I knew a bit more since I was in law school and was mocked by my opponents. While arrogant I was not completely wrong, but it happens.

Yes, I know at times I have nearly lost my "crap" due to obama as he was and continues to be a threat to our republic as long as he is in power.Luckily he is gone in a few months, just hope it is not Hillary.I can probably live with Bernie Sanders as he is unlikely to get 90 percent of his agenda done but is a man of integrity. Hillary would be more dangerous than Obama but will cross that bridge when we come to it. i can live with Cruz but hoping for Trump and even then, I have my reservations about him.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I know this is futile of me, but I have to at least make the attempt.

There are several schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They all have their advantages and disadvantages; their proponents and opponents. None is more "legitimate" than any other.

It is natural for people to prefer schools that agree with their opinions, but that does not make any particular school more or less legitimate.

If there were only one way to interpret the Constitution, we would not need a panel of judges.

It should be noted that even among Conservatives there are differing opinion on which school's method is appropriate. Just like there are differing opinions among Liberals. And of course us Moderates frequently disagree with either side's opinions.

Not futile of you. I do appreciate other views, believe it or not lol.

Well the thing is, "schools of thought" such as the living constitution theory was conjured up to help progressives legitimize their policies and withstand judicial review. because let us be honest here, they won't survive most of the time if in front of an honest Judge/Justice reading constitution as it is.One reason FDR threatened the court and tried his court packing plan was they kept following the constitution and ruling against his "New Deal" schemes, err policies.Only after they felt threatened, did they began to rule in favor. Any theory or "interpretation" that justifies legislating from the bench, is illegitimate. Only legitimate way to change the constitution is the amendment process.

Antonin Scalia has one of my heroes and given his passing, some favorite quotes.


"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."

"On this day, when we’re celebrating our constitutional heritage, I urge you to be faithful to that heritage – to impose on our fellow citizens only the restrictions that are there in the Constitution, not invent new ones, not to invent the right because it’s a good idea."


Yes originalism is the only legitimate ways to interpret the constitution, I stand by that but appreciate what you said.Why do I say that? Simply saying abide by the document as it is, not what wish it would be. Even when/if my view on an issue conflicts , must go with the constitution.Don't like it? Push for an amendment. That is how it was intended to be. A great quote from Scalia "

“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.”


Argument I have with left wingers all the time about Citizens United.While I dislike the real world consequences of the decision when it comes to campaign finance, the decision is constitutionally correct. The court actually did it's job and protected the first amendment. Again, I hate the real world consequences, but that is not their job to consider.