Scalia Dead, Obama Gets A Supreme Nomination

I just wish he had lasted another year…

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
By Gary Martin Updated 4:29 pm, Saturday, February 13, 2016

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Looks like Obama gets to Pack The Court a tiny bit as his parting shot. This has the potential to cause all sorts of grief.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Scalia Dead, Obama Gets A Supreme Nomination

  1. M Simon says:

    I have mixed emotions. He liked Wickard. His Raich decision was an abomination.

  2. p.g.sharrow says:

    this next 12 months will be very a interesting time…pg

  3. Larry Ledwick says:

    This does vastly raise the stakes on this coming Presidential election. Senate Majority leader has already come out that he intends to avoid confirming a replacement until after the election. Of course Reid is pushing for the opposite. There are also some very important cases on the docket right now which will probably all go to 4-4 ties with an 8 justice court.

    It will be high drama to see how this all plays out, as who ever gets nominated will have to survive a brutal confirmation battle. The strict original intent of the Constitution wing of the court has taken a big hit with his loss.

    It will also make the current presidential race much more interesting as the candidates weigh in on their views of the Court.

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    The loss of Justice Scalia is just one more complication in this years political season. Scalia was not the only justice that is long in the tooth. The next president will likely have several opportunities to pack the court. A guess is that Obama will do a quick recess appointment to install a placeholder in the hope that a Democratic president will nominate him, as that is a position that he covets. I see a Trump win and Cruz as the next real Justice. In the long run, that would be the best outcome.
    Trump would be a Right wing Barrack Obama. Not my idea of a good outcome but, most likely the logical outcome.
    American politics is like a pendulum, the socialists have jammed it hard left, now it will go hard right. Like Obama, Trump thinks becoming President is like being CEO of a company, where his wish is law. Bureaucratic inertia is very resistant to any control from the top. After all, they are here forever, presidents are here for only 4 years. The only real control over Bureaucracy is cut off their money and starve them out of existence.
    Congress is supposed to set National Policy. The President, is to execute that policy. The Senate holds veto powers as representatives of the states. A nationally elected President is supposed to represent a national consensuses of direction from the populaces towards the National Federal Government. More like a suggestion rather then a directive. Any president that thinks he has become King is going to be disappointed. Presidents are servants, not rulers… pg

  5. wyoskeptic says:

    Not that it means anything, but Senate Vote #415 in 1960 was passed which stated S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS.

    So, no recess appointments … in theory. In practice, it simply will depend upon how many Republicans hold the line.

    Even if recess appointment were used, then the recess appointment is limited: Specifically, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” (In theory, that is. It might be noticed that Eisenhower appointed five Justices, three by way of recess appointments: Earl Warren, William Brennan and Potter Stewart. All of whom were confirmed. This is what caused the above vote. By Democrats.) So, to put it simply: recess appointments to the Supreme Court tend to be confirmed by the Senate. So far in history, anyway.

    On to the present. From Obama on down the line to a lot of the lowliest civil servants, none have seemed to feel any compunction about obeying the law and no one in the hallowed halls of Congress seems inclined to hold their feet to the fire over it. If the boss at the top says I’ll do whatever I want, so will the underlings. Particularly when it comes to supporting the boss and, just incidentally, keeping their jobs.

    Obama will appoint — either regular or recess — and then the farce will begin. I would not be surprised if he tries to fill the position through executive action, since obviously it is a very important position that his opponents are playing politics with and thereby HE MUST ACT. (That he is limited from doing so will not stop this man, he has done what he wanted since day one and all those around him have done everything they can to make it so.)

    But to expect Obama to follow anything even vaguely resembling the law where it contradicts something he wishes to do is like holding a rock out on the palm of your hand and expecting it to fly up into the sky. The only time Obama follows the law is when doing so is in his favor.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    @Wyoskeptic:

    I was looking at the WIKI on Senate Terms and it seemed to say that the old Senate expired on Jan 3 and the new one began. Nothing I saw prevented the Senate from declaring one session ended at 3:00 PM and the next one started at 3:01 PM… But there may be some niceties I don’t know about the Senate…

    But yeah, The One will do whatever he wants, then the fur will fly.

    I’d not put it past a Republican Senate to see a recess appointment, call a session and end it in a minute, and then blow a raspberry…

  7. wyoskeptic says:

    E.M. Tru dat.

    Definition Taken from the senate dot gov glossary: recess – A temporary interruption of the Senate’s proceedings, sometimes within the same day. The Senate may also recess overnight rather than adjourn at the end of the day. Recess also refers to longer breaks, such as the breaks taken during holiday periods, pursuant to concurrent resolution.

    But what is most fun is that someone can call the Senate into “pro forma session” session every day while everyone else is away. (Usually someone who lives nearby so it is not a real hardship) Thus it never formally goes into recess.
    According to the link
    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/fl/What-are-lsquoPro-Formarsquo-Sessions-in-Congress.htm
    one of the reasons for Pro Forma is to prevent recess appointments.
    It was used against Obama four times and he insisted that the pro forma sessions did not block his authority to make recess appointments. It took a Democrat controlled Senate to finally confirm his appointments to make them official, however. Lacking Democrat control, if the Republicans do not flinch, he cannot do so this time. They have the power to block if they have the guts to.

  8. Oliver Manuel says:

    Perhaps world leaders play assigned roles in a “Deceptive Universe.”

    http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Sun-as-a-Pulsar.htm

  9. Larry Ledwick says:

    Interesting run down on blocked judicial nominations, which shows clearly that it is the norm not the exception for judicial appointments to fall victim of election cycle politics. The Dems have done it routinely for decades, just as the Republicans have. The fact that the media is playing stupid and not discussing this is the more disturbing issue here. As the Dems like to say elections have consequences — yep when you lose the Senate it gets much harder to stack the courts with your preferred flavor of judge.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-biden-killed-john-robertss-nomination-in-92/2016/02/25/c17841be-dbdf-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Comments are closed.