Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: What Happens If Republicans Refuse to Replace Justice Scalia?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    14,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    What Happens If Republicans Refuse to Replace Justice Scalia?

    What Happens If Republicans Refuse to Replace Justice Scalia?

    Senators Ted Cruz and Richard Burr and some conservative legal scholars are arguing that if a Democrat wins the election, the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone.




    What’s the opposite of Court-packing? It’s one of those linguistic holes that no one knew existed until the last week. Now it’s time for the wordsmiths to get to work.

    The Supreme Court is already short-staffed, ever since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. A month later, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to succeed him. And that’s about where things have sat ever since. Republicans in the Senate have declined to even hold hearings on Garland’s nomination, much less a vote, arguing that voters deserve a chance to weigh in. (Democrats like to point out that voters elected Obama in 2012 for a term that is still ongoing.)

    For months, the debate centered on what would happen if presidential favorite Hillary Clinton won. Would Senate Republicans decide to move on the Garland nomination during the post-election lame-duck session? If not, would Clinton honor Obama’s selection, or would she ask Garland to withdraw and nominate her own (presumably younger, possibly more clearly liberal) choice?

    Now the debate has shifted, as several Republican senators have suggested simply not allowing any Democratic selections to the Supreme Court at all. Late on Monday, CNN reported on private remarks made by Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican up for reelection. He said that there will be no lame-duck confirmation, and then added, “And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”

    That aligns him with Senator Ted Cruz, who last week told Dave Weigel, “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

    A week before that, Senator John McCain, who is also running for reelection, said, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” Later, however, a spokeswoman partially walked back his comments, saying the Arizonan will “thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career.”

    There’s some support for the argument among conservative intellectuals too. Ilya Shapiro argues in The Federalist that the Senate should block any Clinton nominees, saying the Constitution allows it. Michael Stokes Paulsen writes in National Review that the Court should be reduced from nine to six justices. While he supports a legal change in the future, Paulsen says attrition by refusing to confirm would be a good way to get down to six.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 7:41 PM
    Posts
    14,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    They really make it hard to exaggerate their perversity.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    14,609
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    They really make it hard to exaggerate their perversity.
    Balance is bullshit.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    15,047
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are already only 9 justices overseeing 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal. Reducing the number of justices permanently means clogging the court docket to the point it becomes non-functional. Which is apparently the goal.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    14,109
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    They really make it hard to exaggerate their perversity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Balance is bullshit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    There are already only 9 justices overseeing 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal. Reducing the number of justices permanently means clogging the court docket to the point it becomes non-functional. Which is apparently the goal.
    Darn that pesky Constitution for getting in the way!

    Your disdain for fellow Americans is duly noted. You guys are the ones who are so enamored with Amendment XVII. Now that those popularly-elected Senators are actually doing what their constituents are telling them to do (and they are shouting it quite loudly and clearly: they DO NOT WANT another Leftist hack seated on the Supreme Court), you're whining about it.

    "Wwwwaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! We can't get our way because those dastardly Republicans are using our own tactics against us! Not fair!!! It was 'the right thing to do' back when it was a Republican President, but now that it's a Democrat, doing the exact same thing as we did is just OBSTRUCTIONISM!! WWWaaaaahhhhhh!!!! They're evil and mean and they want to destroy the government that we want to impose upon them through extra-Constitutional means! How dare they!"
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  6. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  7. #6
    Join Date
    Friday, October 4th, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 6:34 PM
    Posts
    2,549
    Post Thanks / Like
    Amazing...

    Republicans/conservatives have no right to attempt to forward their ideals but Democratics/Progessives do.

    The logic loses me.

    Back to the political crack pipe..

    I might find it in an opium bowl
    Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
    and lost …
    But the Republicans are racist.

  8. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  9. #7
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    15,047
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Darn that pesky Constitution for getting in the way!

    Your disdain for fellow Americans is duly noted. You guys are the ones who are so enamored with Amendment XVII. Now that those popularly-elected Senators are actually doing what their constituents are telling them to do (and they are shouting it quite loudly and clearly: they DO NOT WANT another Leftist hack seated on the Supreme Court), you're whining about it.

    "Wwwwaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! We can't get our way because those dastardly Republicans are using our own tactics against us! Not fair!!! It was 'the right thing to do' back when it was a Republican President, but now that it's a Democrat, doing the exact same thing as we did is just OBSTRUCTIONISM!! WWWaaaaahhhhhh!!!! They're evil and mean and they want to destroy the government that we want to impose upon them through extra-Constitutional means! How dare they!"
    Please take your broad brush and stick it where the sun don't shine.

    My comment went directly to the proposal to reduce the number of justices permanently and drastically. I'm well aware of the games various parties have played with court appointments (not just the Supremes) going back to a certain Mr. Marbury.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:55 AM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    5,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    What’s the opposite of Court-packing? It’s one of those linguistic holes that no one knew existed until the last week. Now it’s time for the wordsmiths to get to work.
    I nominate "court-holing".

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Your disdain for fellow Americans is duly noted. You guys are the ones who are so enamored with Amendment XVII. Now that those popularly-elected Senators are actually doing what their constituents are telling them to do (and they are shouting it quite loudly and clearly: they DO NOT WANT another Leftist hack seated on the Supreme Court), you're whining about it.
    And this is why Senators should never have been elected in the first place.

    To counter your argument… if Hillary does win, won't that be a mandate from the people to continue those hack leftist policies? They will be voting in Obama II.

    I dunno why they just can't hold hearings and then decline to nominate. Or is that too dangerous?
    “Your boos mean nothing, I see what makes you cheer! … Every breath I take without your permission increases my self-esteem!” - Rick Sanchez

  11. Likes Norm dePlume liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    14,609
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    Please take your broad brush and stick it where the sun don't shine.

    My comment went directly to the proposal to reduce the number of justices permanently and drastically. I'm well aware of the games various parties have played with court appointments (not just the Supremes) going back to a certain Mr. Marbury.
    I think we are in new territory.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:44 AM
    Posts
    4,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    I dunno why they just can't hold hearings and then decline to nominate. Or is that too dangerous?
    If they hold hearings, then they have to come up with a reason to view a nominee down.
    Far better to claim to want to wait for the will of the people.

    I'm curious what the excuse will be after the election.

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •