[PassedOut]

Of course congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices, and could simply set it now to eight. It started out as six, and has been as high as ten.

[WellSpyder]

kenberg, on 2016-February-25, 10:29, said:

It would be good to see this, but we will not see this. And so it goes.

Watching all this from the outside is incredibly depressing. Do your politicians not care at all about how much disrepute they bring their profession into? Are they really naïve enough to believe it will all stick to the other side rather than the whole political process? Or is this just an example of the "we are right so we can justify doing anything" attitude that the US sometimes appears to display towards the rest of the world?

[mike777]

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:

Watching all this from the outside is incredibly depressing. Do your politicians not care at all about how much disrepute they bring their profession into? Are they really naïve enough to believe it will all stick to the other side rather than the whole political process? Or is this just an example of the "we are right so we can justify doing anything" attitude that the US sometimes appears to display towards the rest of the world?

Both are reasons.

Please keep in mind even in your own country of the UK there are discussions, very serious discussions of destroying the UK as we know it today and replacing it with something else or several something elses. These sorts of things happen all the time in history even in 2016.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:

Watching all this from the outside is incredibly depressing. Do your politicians not care at all about how much disrepute they bring their profession into? Are they really naïve enough to believe it will all stick to the other side rather than the whole political process? Or is this just an example of the "we are right so we can justify doing anything" attitude that the US sometimes appears to display towards the rest of the world?

We've had congressional gridlock for at least the past two administrations, so obviously they don't care.

I've heard some opinions that the GOP is bluffing, and will back down when Obama actually presents him. It's easy to be boisterous now, but it would be political suicide to actually go through with it. It's like when they hold the budget hostage and threaten government shutdowns.

[kenberg]

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:

Watching all this from the outside is incredibly depressing. Do your politicians not care at all about how much disrepute they bring their profession into? Are they really naïve enough to believe it will all stick to the other side rather than the whole political process? Or is this just an example of the "we are right so we can justify doing anything" attitude that the US sometimes appears to display towards the rest of the world?

Incredibly depressing from here as well.
People often bemoan the lack of compromise. True enough, but I want to make a distinction.
If people treat others with respect, often they can come up with something that is better than what either or any would have come up with on their own. This is more than a compromise where each side gives in some, it becomes a solution that all parties can agree is better all around than what anyone had suggested at the beginning.
This simply cannot happen in the current climate and we are all worse off for it.
Very depressing.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-February-25, 12:32, said:

I've heard some opinions that the GOP is bluffing, and will back down when Obama actually presents him. It's easy to be boisterous now, but it would be political suicide to actually go through with it. It's like when they hold the budget hostage and threaten government shutdowns.

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

[Winstonm]

The "American Taliban" faction refuses to compromise and is holding the entire GOP hostage. There is no such faction within the Democrats. We will find out in this coming election cycle how much appeal there is in this "take no hostage, my way or the highway" political message.

Personally, I hope the GOP gets gutted, as I hate to think I could live in a country that would actually elect any of the current crop of GOP candidates.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2016-February-25, 16:07, said:

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

I bet if they do hold a full vote, the person will be confirmed. I think if they hold full hearings they will have a vote on the floor of the senate. Assuming the guy or gal is not a mass murderer or card carrying socialist, they get in if they hold hearings.

THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in.

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2016-February-25, 16:47, said:

I bet if they do hold a full vote, the person will be confirmed. I think if they hold full hearings they will have a vote on the floor of the senate. Assuming the guy or gal is not a mass murderer or card carrying socialist, they get in if they hold hearings.

THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in.

So a short list of disqualifcations:

Mass murderer
Card carrying Socialist

Anything else? Multiple personality disorder? Once smoked marijuana?

I am joking of course. Or am I? Time will tell.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-February-25, 16:07, said:

My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.

As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.

That's why many are saying that Obama needs to nominate a centrist -- someone the GOP would have a hard time objecting to. So if they do vote him down, it will be obvious that it was done to be obstructionist, just like threatening not to have a vote at all.

[y66]

Will Senator Grassley eventually consent to hold hearings? I think he will come under tremendous, increasing pressure from a number of different directions including his home state of Iowa and eventually consent.

[y66]

From The Supreme Court’s New Era by Linda Greenhouse:

Quote

So now we know what the post-Scalia Supreme Court sounds like. Thank you, Justice Thomas, for shaking up what had come to seem the natural order of things, as well as for your pithy observation from the bench that possession of a gun “at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

And we can watch the spreading panic in a corporate world no longer certain that business has five reliable friends at the court. Last Friday, Dow Chemical agreed to settle a class-action price-fixing case for $835 million rather than take its chances in a Scalia-less court. The company’s appeal of a $1.06 billion jury verdict in a long-running antitrust case, brought by purchasers of urethane, had been pending at the court since last March. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death means an “increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action suits,” Dow said in a statement announcing the decision to settle.

There will be more such turnabouts — appeals withdrawn, appeals not filed — as players for whom the Supreme Court status quo almost always brought good news recalculate their risks and cut their losses. I picture the Beltway now as a giant poker game, a fitting memorial to the poker-loving justice.

Because no one knows what happens next. Hearing what the new court sounds like is a far cry from knowing what it will look like six months, nine months, a year or more from now. We don’t know, and neither do the eight justices. It’s a rare moment that finds the court and the public stumbling around behind the same veil of ignorance. Just as advocates and their clients have to make strategic calculations, so do the justices. The stakes couldn’t be higher on either side of the bench.

[kenberg]

A highly qualified and minimally ideological justice, nominated by a Democratic President and confirmed by a Republican dominated Senate, would be a gift to the nation.

But now we must get back to reality. Too bad.

[barmar]

The On Point Blog has an article describing a constitutional technicality that could allow Garland (or some other Obama nominee) to be approved by the Senate even if the current one blocks his hearing. There are 13 days between the start of the next congressional session and the inauguration of the new President. If the Democrats take control of the new Senate, they could take up the nomination during that period.

[Flem72]

barmar, on 2016-March-18, 11:27, said:

The On Point Blog has an article describing a constitutional technicality that could allow Garland (or some other Obama nominee) to be approved by the Senate even if the current one blocks his hearing. There are 13 days between the start of the next congressional session and the inauguration of the new President. If the Democrats take control of the new Senate, they could take up the nomination during that period.

If the Dems take control of the Senate, and do confirm, that, to me, is a "let the people speak" scenario.

[kenberg]

Following this a little further, suppose Dems take control of the Senate, and Republicans win the WH. There could be a call out for all left leaning justices who think they might die soon to resign, Obama would nominate their successors, and then, in this two week period, there could be a mass service to anoint them all.

Just fantasizing of course. Good God, I hope so anyway. I think a necessary personal trait for success in politics is to be incapable of feeling embarrassment, no matter your actions.

[y66]

Chief Justice John G Roberts' February 3, 2016 comments about the politicization of the nomination process.

[Winstonm]

At least some time during the day, I think every working stiff in America should stop whatever he is doing and take a moment to thank Antonin Scalia for his contribution to 4-4 S.C. vote that allowed public unions the right to organize. Perhaps after that, we should all have a sing-a-long of "Georgia on My Mind".

[Cyberyeti]

I find it amusing that George Mason university went some way down the road to creating the Antonin Scalia school of law before realising ASSoL might not be the best acronym, when it was pointed out how appropriate it was by detractors.

[kenberg]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-06, 10:02, said:

I find it amusing that George Mason university went some way down the road to creating the Antonin Scalia school of law before realising ASSoL might not be the best acronym, when it was pointed out how appropriate it was by detractors.

This is great!
My mother once explained the care with which they chose my name. It was her opinion that the political chances of Robert A Taft were hampered by his initials.

In the laugh or cry department, this is from today's WaPo

I quote:

Quote

Those who oppose President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee have been digging for dirt to justify opposition by 52 of the 54 Senate Republicans to granting him a hearing. But about the worst thing anybody has come up with: an allegation that Garland crossed lanes in a relay race. In summer camp. Fifty years ago.

“I began to chase Merrick down, narrowing the lead to about five yards with about 70 yards to go,” Fred Eisenhammer, who went to day camp with Garland, wrote recently in the Chicago Tribune. “Merrick cut to the left in front of me before veering back on course. I staggered to avoid crashing into him” and never caught up.
The accuser acknowledged that the “adult leader” did not disqualify Garland’s relay team. But still: “Did Merrick Garland get away with something during that relay race?” Eisenhammer asked. “Was it intentional?”

It may be time to empanel a select committee.

I can see how this disqualifies the Chicago Tribune from being taken seriously, and I would hope that Mr. Eisenhammer receives all of the publicity that this piece entitles him to, but good grief.

As I get it, Merrick Garland's only failing is that he is not an ideologue. Apparently this is a serious shortcoming today.