Scalia has passed away

[knapplc]

Just like every Athletic Director has a short list of coaches ready, I'm sure the White House has a short list of possible Supremes. What's curious is if they specifically had a list of people (a game plan, if you will) to replace Antonin Scalia, one of the most staunchly conservative of the current Justices. It's one thing to replace a liberal with a liberal. The vetting process wouldn't be much of much, and this would be a blip on the radar. But if Obama tries to replace Scalia with some known liberal it'll be a non-starter and the sleeves get rolled up.

 

I don't think it's a mystery that most of us (Americans) want a moderate. But even a moderate would be far to the left of Scalia, so how much protest would that get us?

 

Hard to say. Weird situation.

[QMany]

I think that is what exactly why Obama will nominate a moderate. Even if he is not packing the court with a known liberal judge, it is still by far a net win for Democrats.

[QMany]

Another overlooked aspect, the Senate race this election. There will be a three-week overlap with the new Senate and the Obama administration.

[schriznoeder]

That would be crazy, and some conservative heads would definitely explode in that eventuality.

 

Obama is going to make his worldly fortune as a speaker for the next 20 years. 'First Black President Speaks At Local Event' will sell tickets for years and years. So while he also isn't qualified for the post anyway, I think he'll elect to take the money after his term is up.

 

Speaking of who will replace Scalia, how long do people think it should be before Obama nominates someone? Within the next month? There'll be a mourning period of reasonable decency, but business will have to go on. The next set of cases are to be heard next Monday, 2/22/16.

 

Unless you're Mitch McConnell.

 

And I agree that Obama will take the public speaker route after he leaves office. But it's still fun to imagine all the exploding heads.

[schriznoeder]

Another overlooked aspect, the Senate race this election. There will be a three-week overlap with the new Senate and the Obama administration.

 

Yeah, that could make things really interesting if the process gets drawn out that long.

[Creighton Duke]

Just like every Athletic Director has a short list of coaches ready, I'm sure the White House has a short list of possible Supremes. What's curious is if they specifically had a list of people (a game plan, if you will) to replace Antonin Scalia, one of the most staunchly conservative of the current Justices. It's one thing to replace a liberal with a liberal. The vetting process wouldn't be much of much, and this would be a blip on the radar. But if Obama tries to replace Scalia with some known liberal it'll be a non-starter and the sleeves get rolled up.

 

I don't think it's a mystery that most of us (Americans) want a moderate. But even a moderate would be far to the left of Scalia, so how much protest would that get us?

 

Hard to say. Weird situation.

If this is the case, I think we know who the first choice is

[VectorVictor]

 

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

 

What would be interesting if Obama nominates Hillary.

 

 

 

The GOP would have no idea what to do then and would vapor lock. Remove Hillary from the race (and thus making winning the Presidency that much more likely for the GOP) but have her for the next 20+ years on the Supreme Court?

 

If you thought last Saturday's debates were bad...just dangle this possibility in front of them...

[QMany]

That would be crazy, and some conservative heads would definitely explode in that eventuality.

 

Obama is going to make his worldly fortune as a speaker for the next 20 years. 'First Black President Speaks At Local Event' will sell tickets for years and years. So while he also isn't qualified for the post anyway, I think he'll elect to take the money after his term is up.

I'm certainly not saying Obama should be nominated or anything like that, but I am curious what you consider "qualified for the post?" I presume a lower-level judgeship. Other than that, he has a pretty good resume: Harvard Law graduate, editor of Harvard Law Review, 12 years in private practice, taught Constitutional Law at Chicago Law School (Top-14), US Senator, and POTUS.

 

Note: Loretta Lynch hasn't sat on a bench.

[knapplc]

 

That would be crazy, and some conservative heads would definitely explode in that eventuality.

 

Obama is going to make his worldly fortune as a speaker for the next 20 years. 'First Black President Speaks At Local Event' will sell tickets for years and years. So while he also isn't qualified for the post anyway, I think he'll elect to take the money after his term is up.

I'm certainly not saying Obama should be nominated or anything like that, but I am curious what you consider "qualified for the post?" I presume a lower-level judgeship. Other than that, he has a pretty good resume: Harvard Law graduate, editor of Harvard Law Review, 12 years in private practice, taught Constitutional Law at Chicago Law School (Top-14), US Senator, and POTUS.

 

Note: Loretta Lynch hasn't sat on a bench.

 

 

I would like to see SCJ's have a lifetime of experience practicing law. Certainly Obama's education is impressive, but he's had a career in politics, not on the bench. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have been sitting judges long enough to have more/better experience than Obama.

 

Probably that's just a personal bias of mine, and maybe he could be a great Justice. I'd just prefer to have someone else.

 

 

 

 

EDIT - I guess, also, I would see President Hillary nominating ex-president Obama as a big "F-U" to the Republicans, and that's not at all the tone we need to set with these kinds of appointments.

[Mavric]

Because the attempt is to show that he's not being bigoted. The impact of Fisher is that lesser-advantaged minorities won't be given a chance. These are the same minorities Scalia stamped down when he dismembered the Voting Rights Act. IN CONTEXT, Scalia consistently rules against minorities.

 

Mavric put no more work into his defense of Scalia on this page than I put into my denouncement on page 1. Mavric's post is not 9 hours old and three people have +1'd it. One person has +1'd the other post. The context of Scalia's rulings are bigoted. Pointing that out isn't popular in this thread. Defending it, whitewashing it, is.

 

Are people commenting in this thread interested in the truth, or are they interested in defending their ideology? It's ideology, all the way.

 

+1 if you agree.

 

If there are so many instances of him being bigoted, it shouldn't be that hard to find some that are not taken out of context, should it?

 

Speaking of ideology, simply pointing out that someone rules against minorities certainly does not make them bigoted. You ideology may say that, but that doesn't make it true. That ideology would say "I don't care what the law says, you should rule this way because that's what I think should be done." Someone not as rooted in their ideology would be able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

"Ruling against minorities" may be an indicator of bigotry. But it may be that the cases highlighted the minorities were asking for more than what is allowed under the law. Not to be able to recognize that is more of a commentary on your own ideology than someone else's.

[knapplc]

You're right. Scalia was a saint, unbigoted, and I'm the bad guy for pointing that out. Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways.

[knapplc]

I'd also like to note that I called Chuck Schumer an "idiot." While there have been dozens of posts in defense of Scalia, not one post has called me to task for that epithet.

 

But I'm sure the protestations for Scalia are unbiased, only asking for fairness. I'm sure the replies about Schumer are just delayed a little. Right?

[Moiraine]

I wonder if Obama has considered Trev Alberts as a nominee.

[BigRedBuster]

I'd also like to note that I called Chuck Schumer an "idiot." While there have been dozens of posts in defense of Scalia, not one post has called me to task for that epithet.

 

But I'm sure the protestations for Scalia are unbiased, only asking for fairness. I'm sure the replies about Schumer are just delayed a little. Right?

 

 

Your confusion possibly is because you conveniently keep ignoring these two highlighted statements in Mavric's post.

 

I'm not going to particularly defend the last statement you quoted. I think it would be fair to criticize him for this. But I'm also having trouble finding a more complete context for it. From what I've found, that quote seems to be more directed at the fact that he thought Senators were feeling pressure to vote a certain way rather than actually vote what they thought was right. But that's getting pretty nit-picky.

Like I said, I'm not saying that any of that disproves your assertion. But I think it's worth questioning when many of those points seem to be taken out of context. And I also think there can be a distinction between what a person feels personally and what they think the government can/should do. There are many things that I personally agree or disagree with but I concede that the government either can't do them or can't prevent them because of how our government is set up. Just because I say "the government can't do ....." doesn't necessarily mean I personally don't think it should be done. Sometimes it does, other times it doesn't.

 

I'm not answering your poll in the other thread simply due to the fact I don't know him personally and have no way of knowing if he is bigoted or not. Your opinion is that he is based on his rulings. That doesn't make it so.

[knapplc]

Apparently I also keep ignoring the comments calling me to task for my analysis of Schumer. Could you quote those and put them in bold for me, to alleviate my confusion? Thanks in advance.