Supreme Court Justice Scalia Died Of Natural Causes

[Sultan Of Swing]

Obama will nominate someone; the GOP will block for 10-months, the next President will be elected and they will have the say who is the next Judge

Could backfire horribly on the Republicans with Obama trying to propose a compromise candidate, GOP blocks and then Bernie or Hillary wins the Presidency and nominates a super-progressive justice.

EDIT: Though if they do nothing it's a lose-lose scenario, so might as well try to block and hope for a Republican win rather than do nothing and admit defeat, even if Obama's nomination is a compromise.

 

[metis]

Good strategy.

Really? Even though it has never happened before in American history? The longest previous delay was with Justice Thomas, which took a bit over 100 days, but that delay was because they had to investigate the Anita Hill allegations. After the "smoking gun" was not found, they went ahead for the confirmation.

If the Republicans do that, and if a Republican becomes our next president, then what do you think the Dems would likely do then? And under those circumstances, I couldn't blame them.

 

[metis]

Could backfire horribly on the Republicans with Obama trying to propose a compromise candidate, GOP blocks and then Bernie or Hillary wins the Presidency and nominates a super-progressive justice.

EDIT: Though if they do nothing it's a lose-lose scenario, so might as well try to block and hope for a Republican win rather than do nothing and admit defeat, even if Obama's nomination is a compromise.

And you don't think that such a lengthy delay wouldn't be used by the Dems as just another example of the Republican-controlled "Do Nothing Congress", which already weighs heavily against them as we're seeing?

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? Even though it has never happened before in American history? The longest previous delay was with Justice Thomas, which took a bit over 100 days, but that delay was because they had to investigate the Anita Hill allegations. After the "smoking gun" was not found, they went ahead for the confirmation.

If the Republicans do that, and if a Republican becomes our next president, then what do you think the Dems would likely do then? And under those circumstances, I couldn't blame them.

It's still a good strategy if Obama nominates a disliked candidate.
If we have a Dem prez, they're back where they started.
If we have a Pub prez, they nominate who they want.
No matter what, it will be a partisan fight.

 

[metis]

I hate to say this, but if any party refuses to recognize our long traditions by taking a "no holds barred" approach to this and a lot of other major matters, this country will be royally screwed in the long run.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hate to say this, but if any party refuses to recognize our long traditions by taking a "no holds barred" approach to this and a lot of other major matters, this country will be royally screwed in the long run.

Depending upon one's political outlook, we're "royally screwed" either way.
Perhaps it will be less so if we avoid an Obama nominated justice.

 

[metis]

It's still a good strategy if Obama nominates a disliked candidate.
If we have a Dem prez, they're back where they started.
If we have a Pub prez, they nominate who they want.
No matter what, it will be a partisan fight.

There's a big difference between a serious discussion over a nomination versus and intentional and unprecedented delay of almost 300 days. You just "moved the goalposts" because your "Good strategy" statement was in regards to the latter, not the former.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a big difference between a serious discussion over a nomination versus and intentional and unprecedented delay of almost 300 days. You just "moved the goalposts" because your "Good strategy" statement was in regards to the latter, not the former.

I didn't have any goal posts to move.
I'm only pointing out their strategy.
Personally, I've no reason to believe that a Pub's nominee would be any better the Dem's.

 

[metis]

Depending upon one's political outlook, we're "royally screwed" either way.
Perhaps it will be less so if we avoid an Obama nominated justice.

That would be completely idiotic and catastrophic in the long run, and even Jeb made the comment that this is Obama's right under the Constitution. Do you even have the slightest clue what that precedent would do? Any idea whatsoever?

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be completely idiotic and catastrophic in the long run, and even Jeb made the comment that this is Obama's right under the Constitution. Do you even have the slightest clue what that precedent would do? Any idea whatsoever?

Obviously, the time frame for fighting would lengthen.
And it would affect Obama's strategy in choosing a candidate.
The sky wouldn't fall.

 

[metis]

I didn't have any goal posts to move.
I'm only pointing out their strategy.
Personally, I've no reason to believe that a Pub's nominee would be any better the Dem's.

Now you are just being disingenuous as anyone can see, because all you did was to shift gears from a long delay to a contested nomination.

 

[metis]

Obviously, the time frame for fighting would lengthen.
And it would affect Obama's strategy in choosing a candidate.
The sky wouldn't fall.

Sorry but you still are being disgustingly dishonest about what you posted.

We're done.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Really? Even though it has never happened before in American history? The longest previous delay was with Justice Thomas, which took a bit over 100 days, but that delay was because they had to investigate the Anita Hill allegations. After the "smoking gun" was not found, they went ahead for the confirmation.

If the Republicans do that, and if a Republican becomes our next president, then what do you think the Dems would likely do then? And under those circumstances, I couldn't blame them.

According to Time magazine, the longest since the late 1800s was 391 days, in 1969-1970.

http://time.com/4224348/scalia-vacancy-supreme-court/

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you are just being disingenuous as anyone can see, because all you did was to shift gears from a long delay to a contested nomination.

Sorry but you still are being disgustingly dishonest about what you posted.
We're done.

Disingenuous?
Dishonest?
I don't think I'm having the same conversation that you are.
I'm just speculating about what would be useful strategy for the parties.
I've no horse in this race.

Sometimes I've no clue why you get so worked up.
But always observe rule #1.

 

[metis]

Disingenuous?
I don't think I'm having the same conversation that you are.
I'm just speculating about what would be useful strategy for the parties.
I've no horse in this race.

Sometimes I just don't know why you get so worked up.

^^ignore list^^

Reason: I don't like it when someone is being disingenuous as you have been here because it becomes impossible to have any serious discussion with them. You know what you wrote and meant, and I know what you wrote and obviously meant, so I'm done with your games.

 

[Revoltingest]

^^ignore list^^

Reason: I don't like it when someone is being disingenuous as you have been here because it becomes impossible to have any serious discussion with them. You know what you wrote and meant, and I know what you wrote and obviously meant, so I'm done with your games.

You know how this always goes.
I'm on <ignore> for a few weeks.
Then you can't resist conversing, & I'm back in your good graces.

Many problems on RF are due to one poster erroneously inferring something.
Sometimes they'll insist one means something which one doesn't.
And other times they'll not even share this mistaken inference.
The latter is happening here.
Apparently, you think I'm advocating for something you dislike.
But I'm not saying what should happen.
I only note what I think the parties will find in their self interest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally, I've no reason to believe that a Pub's nominee would be any better the Dem's.

With a Dem nomination, same-sex marriage is not in any real danger of being over turned. It's not likely the ACA will be re-addressed. And there may be the potential to overturn citizens united.

 

[Revoltingest]

With a Dem nomination, same-sex marriage is not in any real danger of being over turned. It's not likely the ACA will be re-addressed. And there may be the potential to overturn citizens united.

There are risks to liberty from both parties.
Which is worse?
That would depend upon the specific nominee.

I think gay marriage (despite decades of Dem opposition, including by Hillary)
& Citizens United are both safe because they're on sound constitutional grounds.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Citizens United are both safe because they're on sound constitutional grounds.

Citizens United isn't on sound grounds, as it is not logically sound to declare a corporation a person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Citizens United isn't on sound grounds, as it is not logically sound to declare a corporation a person.

That wasn't what the ruling claimed.
Corporations have had some of the rights of persons since before the country was founded, eg, the right to sue in court.
This is because corporations are how people assemble to accomplish things.
The question becomes which rights they have or do not have, eg, the right to marry.
Political advocacy is one right they have, & spending money enables that.

Ref....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Misconceptions
In debates on this topic it is sometimes asserted that the notion of corporate personhood implies that corporations are entitled to all of the rights and privileges that apply to natural persons (i.e., human beings). However, the definition of corporate personhood includes some, but not all of said rights and privileges. Whether a corporation is a "person" possessing any one of those rights or privileges is properly decided by applying basic logic, common sense, and relevant and valid law to an examination of generally accepted reasons why the state grants existence to the legal fiction of the corporate form, so that on the one hand courts may hold that corporations must have the right to own property or enter into contracts, or to be subject to municipal zoning laws that apply to "persons" without necessarily having the same speech rights enjoyed by natural persons and without having the right to vote and without counting as a second "person" for the purpose of driving in a carpool lane.[21][22][23][24]