President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to block the nomination until after the 2016 elections, President Obama is attempting to portray Garland as a centrist who has achieved bipartisan support in the past and should be given a fair hearing:
President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court is already making telephone calls to senators, hoping to win a confirmation hearing. Merrick Garland will start making in-person visits to the Capitol on Thursday. That's the normal order of business for a high-court nominee. But with many Senate Republicans insisting they won't consider Garland's nomination, the White House is also taking its case to the American public.
The PR campaign for Garland includes a dedicated Twitter handle (@scotusnom), a feel-good biographical video and a litany of details designed to humanize the well-regarded appellate judge. Not only did Garland graduate with honors from Harvard, the White House noted, he sold his comic book collection to help pay the tuition.
"I'd like to take a minute to introduce Merrick to the American people," the president said in the Rose Garden. He highlighted Garland's record as a prosecutor who helped bring Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to justice, and a jurist who's won praise from conservatives including John Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight argues that the Republican Senate may be passing up an opportunity with the relatively center-left nominee Merrick Garland. If betting markets are to be believed, a Democrat (likely Hillary Clinton) has a much better chance of becoming President than a Republican (likely Donald Trump), possibly with a Democratic-controlled Senate in tow. Blocking the nomination could also hurt the Republican Party politically in November, at least according to wishful Democratic strategists as well as polls showing that a majority of Americans want the nominee to be considered. If the Senate refuses to hold confirmation hearings now, they could ultimately vote in a more liberal justice in 2017, and more down the line.
Profile at NYT. Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution.
Related Stories
Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
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.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:39PM
Or then the tuition fees have really changed lately...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:45PM
These Republicans are free to vote against the nomination if they wish. But they need to do their damn job and not ignore the constitution. That means holding the hearing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:04PM
I agree that Merrick should get a hearing, as most Americans polled do. But is it definitely unconstitutional?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii [cornell.edu]
Obviously some sources [newrepublic.com] think so.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:10PM
He nominates, they say yes or no. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The Republicans are denying the President his constitutional power to nominate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:22PM
The astonishing part is Mitch McConnell accusing Obama of "politicizing" the nomination process, just for doing his job. I mean there's nothing "politicizing" about refusing to even consider the nominee right?
Their taking an interesting gamble there, and must be pretty confident that they'll have a Republican in the White house. They could end up with another Sonia Sotomayor instead of a Merrick Garland.
(Score: 3, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:25PM
Their = They're...long day today...
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:27PM
Technically, he's required to submit a nomination. So it's not some privilege, they are preventing from fulfilling his duties as President. it's spelled right out in plain English: "he shall nominate..."
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:30PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:40PM
If you want to be picky on that point, the president could do like Caligula and submit Incitatus for nomination. That will leave the senate with the usual affirm, reject or impeach options. Concluding, with the president fulfilling his duty to nominate to office, regardless of whether the nomination was approved or not.
Honestly, even if the constitution was written properly, republic constitutions are a passive-aggressive bitch. In the same way budgets don't HAVE to be signed leading to government shutdown, SCOTUS judges don't HAVE to be appointed... but that leaves a missing quorum and puts U.S. Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 133 ยง 2109 into effect.
Overall, by today's standards, the US constitution is due for an overhaul.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 18 2016, @07:05PM
I should add that in my admittedly left-wing view, a horse's rear would be a perfect replacement for Scalia.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:39PM
Their taking an interesting gamble there, and must be pretty confident that they'll have a Republican in the White house.
There will be plenty of time for hearings and approval AFTER the election.
Of course Obama might withdraw the nomination if a Democrat wins, but it is arguably too late then, because it is unclear what happens of the senate approves the nomination after (or before) the president withdraws the nomination. Most analysis seems to suggest once the senate has spoken the President's hands are tied.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday March 17 2016, @10:12PM
Whoa...let me get this straight: It sounds like you're saying that if a Democrat wins they election, the Republicans will quickly confirm Obama's moderate nominee as damage control to prevent a more liberal nomination...but if a Republican wins, he'll immediately withdraw Obama's nominate in favor of some Scalia clone. As the saying goes "I see what you did there". If that's the game plan it's even more despicable than I thought.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @11:12PM
Whoa...let me get this straight: It sounds like you're saying that if a Democrat wins they election, the Republicans will quickly confirm Obama's moderate nominee as damage control to prevent a more liberal nomination...
Yes, the above is actively being talked about. I saw an article about this just today.
but if a Republican wins, he'll immediately withdraw Obama's nominate in favor of some Scalia clone. As the saying goes "I see what you did there". If that's the game plan it's even more despicable than I thought.
No, that hasn't been suggested yet, because of the timing issue. The Republican wouldn't be able to immediately do that till sworn in.
Obama may wait till congress recesses/ajourns, and appoint (recess appointment) someone else, more to his liking.
What I was suggesting above is that if HRC wins, obama my beat the senate by withdrawing Garland's name, and (possibly) substitute a more liberal nominee, or let it sit vacant until HRC takes office.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday March 18 2016, @01:32AM
That is precisely the game plan.
There are basically 2 reasons why:
1. Those from conservative states, which make up the majority and include Mitch McConnell, represent at least in part an area of the country that basically has never accepted Obama's right to be president of the United States. I don't mean vehemently disagreeing with him (although there's definitely a set that thinks that way as well), I mean refusing to accept the federal government's right to exist while he's in charge. Cliven Bundy and his crew are seen as representatives of this viewpoint. That's why they don't think Obama should be able to nominate Supreme Court justices. Some of the loonier set had the same reaction back when Bill Clinton was in charge, but it's gotten much more so under Obama than it ever was under Clinton, probably because Obama is black (at least in the state where I live, 1/3 of Republicans will vote for a white Democrat over a black Republican, so don't tell me race doesn't play a role).
2. Justices are appointed for life, and often last well over 20 years in that role. That means that whose appointments control the court can determine policy much longer than a president or senator can. That's why the conservatives in the Senate are perfectly willing to sacrifice a few senators from more moderate states (e.g. Kelly Ayotte) to win this battle. Also worth mentioning is that there are only 2 circumstances in which the political slant of the court changes these days: (a) the death of a justice in office (as happened here), or (b) a change of heart of a sitting justice (e.g. David Souter). So Obama replacing the liberal John Paul Stevens with the liberal Elena Kagan, and the liberal David Souter with the liberal Sonia Sotomayor was not as big a deal as the very real possibility that he'll replace the conservative Scalia with the left-of-center Garland, because it will probably be decades before the Republicans have the chance to flip the political slant of the court back to their side.
Also, as should be blindingly obvious by now, for these guys, principles and collegiality be damned, they're playing to win regardless of all the niceties.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 17 2016, @10:03PM
Once you pick through the metric tons of bullshit spewing from Republican's mouths, you get this gem:
"We just don't want to lose. It's not about anything else other than the fact we want a strong conservative Republican on the Supreme Court, and whatever slimy games we need to play to win, we will do so"
Desperation is a stinky cologne, and the Republicans reek of it. Arguing about the rules of the game now that they might be in a losing position is just pathetic. Which again, is not astonishing at all, but part of the games politicians play. This isn't all that much different than rider bills in a must-pass omnibus legislation. Both Democrats and Republicans play these shitty games, because that's the playing field that they built together.
I'm astonished at your levels of astonishment :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday March 18 2016, @12:05AM
If the Democrats retake the Senate, President Hillary Clinton could nominate ex-president Obama ... Republican heads explode.
On the other hand, President Donald Trump is just as likely to nominate Judge Judy ... everybody's head explodes.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday March 18 2016, @05:26AM
Judge Judy wouldn't take the pay cut..
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-judys-47-million-annual-875404 [hollywoodreporter.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @04:34PM
"and must be pretty confident that they'll have a Republican in the White house."
While I wouldn't vote for a democrat (and have pretty much stopped voting anyways) I noticed that republicans have an all or nothing mentality. They don't understand the concept of compromise to get something closer to what they want. Instead they will vote against any compromises even if that means they end up losing. As someone who would vote republican given the choice between democrat and republican (though I would rather vote libertarian or pirate partisan) I find it annoying that the republicans are possibly helping to get democratic polices passed with their refusal to compromise. It's not that they are confident that they'll have a republican in the white house it's more like they seem unable to see past the immediate future and are only basing their decisions on the hope that the distant future might somehow go their way without giving any thought of the odds based on current circumstance, history, or common sense. I would even venture to say that most republicans know that a republican president is unlikely (and I don't want Hillary Clinton to win either) but they refuse to think that far ahead when making their decisions so that they can maintain the happy illusion among themselves that if they refuse to compromise now everything will go their way. This illusion (of power, control, and getting their way) makes them happy and they don't want to trade the short term pleasure they get of maintaining the illusion for the long term benefit they will receive if they faced reality now and made long term decisions.
An analogy would be a drug user. The drug user knows he's going to crash and their drug use will come back to bite them but while doing drugs they don't care and are willing to trade a long term detriment for a short term benefit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:17PM
I think you pretty much nailed it. They are taking a (very) short term gain at the cost of medium term (5-10 years), then perhaps hoping for a second civil war for the long term.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:34PM
Its not straight forward as you seem to thing.
And refusing to say yes is the same as saying NO.
The constitution does not say that they must hold hearings. It does not say that they must say no.
It simply says that they must consent, which means they only have to say Yes if they do consent.
Anything else means no.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:48PM
Ah, I see. Trying to weasel your way around the plainly worded language in the constitution is only bad when the other team does it. Got it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:10PM
The Constitution does not specify any sort of time frame for the Senate to reject or confirm a nominee. So if they want to use the Biden Rule they are free to do so and Obama and the media (BIRM) can howl "racism" (somehow) as loud as they like but in the end they can just pound sand. If Obama really wanted to be a dick he could try a recess appointment after the new Congress begins and before he leaves if an opportunity presents itself and that would, depending on the court battle that would ensue, put the guy on the Court for two years when that Congress ends.
Yes waiting is a risk, but since all depends on it it must be taken. Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments hang in the balance.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:39PM
You can't say its perfectly fine for Congress to slow roll it for almost a year then turn around and say Obama would be a dick if he did a recess appointment. Waiting out the last year of Obama's presidency would be as much of a dick move as a recess appointment. Actually less, I would argue, as it would get the Court seat filled quicker. That's like a lame duck Congress rushing through and impeaching a president because they knew it couldn't happen in the next Congress. Seriously, you'd have to be a real dick to do that.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @11:01PM
Recess appointments to the Court are discussed in this article:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/ [scotusblog.com]
Lots of tricky details.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:18PM
What weaseling? Where does it say in the Constitution that they have to hold hearings? It's like the 9-justice number. There's nothing that says it has to be nine either. Obama can decide not to fill this vacancy if he wanted and the Constitution would be perfectly fine with that, or he could try to pump up the Court with a half dozen extras a la Roosevelt [npr.org]. These kind of things are the way they are because of 100 or so years of convention, not because the Constitution says so.
You ought to read up a little [supremecourt.gov] before you go off and show your ignorance by being a dick.
How about you show us this "plain language" of which you speak?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @07:24PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:47PM
There is no timeline in the text, but no nominee has ever waited more than 3 months to get an answer.
There were no hearings for the first 100 to 150 years. It's a recent custom.
Obama has another 10 months. I'm pretty sure the Establishment Republicans should accept this guy, because neither Trump nor Clinton will give them a better choice.
Just for kicks, Obama should ask SCOTUS to rule on whether refusing to consider a vote is a violation of the Senators' oath to uphold the Constitution.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:42PM
The Republicans are denying the President his constitutional power to nominate.
Really? Did you bother to read the title of this thread Story? He has already nominated.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:12PM
Everyone's a constitutional scholar these days. Sod the ~250 years of interpretation by the courts (including scotus) as well as established precedent...
"Can you read? Do you understand the literal meaning of words? You too can be a constitutional scholar and make millions of $$$ by working from home! See how this fuckwit did it, supreme court justices hate him for this one trick!"
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:19PM
How terrible it is that people dare to try to use their brains rather than mindlessly appeal to authority figures. The Enlightened Ones who understand The Truth are not pleased.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:24PM
While fundamentally you are correct, I'd love to see the argument between you and the supreme court go down with /you/ setting the law of the land and not the authority figure that is the SCOTUS.
My point is that on this particular issue, namely the interpretation of the constitution, it doesn't matter what /you/ think the constitution says. You have no say in that whatsoever. The justices on the courts aren't even elected, as evidenced by the article above (they are appointed), and good luck getting any of them impeached because you don't agree with one of them.
In this particular case of constitution interpretation, there is only the authority figure to turn to, bend over, receive what's coming and say "thank you, sir, can I have some more please"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:28PM
While fundamentally you are correct, I'd love to see the argument between you and the supreme court go down with /you/ setting the law of the land and not the authority figure that is the SCOTUS.
That's because, as a practical matter, there needs to be an authority figure who decides things at the end of the day. But we must recognize that these authority figures can be wrong and take action to correct them when they are. It's too bad there is no real accountability when they blatantly ignore the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:38PM
That's because, as a practical matter, there needs to be an authority figure who decides things at the end of the day. But we must recognize that these authority figures can be wrong and take action to correct them when they are.
I think this is addressed in the posts above:
"there needs to be an authority figure who decides things at the end of the day": Agreed, and this means that what you think doesn't matter that much, see ancestor-posts.
"But we must recognize that these authority figures can be wrong": I think we're still on the same page, but what you think is wrong is not the same as what I think is wrong. And there's many of yous and I's that all have to live together happily.
"and take action to correct them when they are": See previous item, as well as the part about impeaching them in the posts above. There was Samuel Chase [wikipedia.org] who was impeached as an Associate Justice but that's it... And that was in 1811. Good luck doing that now!
All in all, I think we're on the same page and fundamentally in agreement, but I think we look it it from a different perspective/direction.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:22PM
Well that's the whole point isn't it? Supreme Court justices can overturn decades of precedent by agreeing to take a case, and then ruling differently. Whatever they say goes and there is no higher court of appeal.
That's why there is such a big fight over this Supreme Court nomination, and why the 2016 President elect is so important, since more justices are expected to retire.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:55PM
There is a higher court of appeal. Congress is able to change the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. They are also able to submit amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states. Not always an easy task, but the path is availble nonetheless.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:47PM
Then maybe we should have somebody rewrite the Constitution in plain language if it's "not literal."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:50PM
oooohhhh... you're a literalist...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:01PM
Or just use whatever interpretation maximizes individual liberty in the cases where the text is ambiguous.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:26PM
This guy agrees with a lot of Bush's and Obama's terrorism fearmongering, and apparently believes we should sacrifice our liberties for security. His previous rulings indicate this. This puts him at odds with the constitution, and is therefore not a good nomination. Good job, Obama.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:31PM
It's a bit of a tactical move, I think. He's putting someone forward that's considered moderate and that the Republicans don't have any really legitimate complaints against.
Hoping to demonstrate that they really don't care about the actual governance part of their job.
Current polling indicates it's working...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:33PM
Hopefully the Reps show their true selves and split in two over this issue, as with every other issue. Plus they can't stomach their choice for President. Fit to govern much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:45PM
Even on this site you get the "this guy doesn't agree with 100% of what I believe, so he must be stopped!" It's like all the whining about "activist judges", where "activist judge" means "doesn't vote the way I want". Look at the Chief Justice. Republicans howled (the loud-mouthed idiot ones, at least) when in ONE case he made a legal decision based upon legal arguments of the Constitution that didn't go their way, and suddenly he is a "traitor". And these guys bitch about how the other side wants "activist judges"?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:53PM
Even on this site you get the "this guy doesn't agree with 100% of what I believe, so he must be stopped!"
Oh, bullshit. Expecting judges to actually uphold the fucking highest law of the land should be commonplace. Mass surveillance, the TSA, and all this warrantless surveillance that threatens democracy in general, are all unconstitutional. Are you seriously you're alright with that, and people should just keep quiet when judges blatantly ignore the constitution? Well, I'm not going to listen to that. It's not just this guy, either, but a lot of the people on the Supreme Court, and a lot of judges in general. This should not be tolerated. But I didn't expect anything more from Obama, since he respects civil liberties around as much as Bush did: Not at all.
But if you want to summarize my position that way, then here's what you're saying: "This guy doesn't agree with this other guy about something! He should stop voicing his disagreements!"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:11PM
That's because you are assuming that your interpretation of the law is the "right" way to interpret. The fire and fervency of the Righteous! The blithering idiots who felt Roberts a traitor felt that way because of their One True and Right position on Obamacare. I know, that is a COMPLETELY different situation because here we're talking about something that is important to YOU, which means that yours is obviously the One True and Right position.
That's also why we have multiple judges in the first place, to make sure the morally self-righteous don't needlessly impose their will on the rest of us.
Yours is just a small part of the regular pundit cacophony that comes up every time there is a seat open on the Court. A nominee could have a 30 year career on the bench with hundreds of decisions on record, but I guarantee you there would be lobbyists and staffers combing and sifting through every thing he's ever written so that maybe they can pull up something he wrote for his high school newspaper to show that his views should disqualify him for the position. In other words, "he doesn't agree 100% with what I believe, and I'm going to bitch and whine about it until people as smart as me put in someone that agrees with me."
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 17 2016, @10:01PM
The Obamacare ruling was brilliant politics. By allowing it under the power to tax income, Roberts setup a future battle that the law which originated in the Senate did not follow proper procedure and is thus invalid. This will only happen, of course, if it proves unpopular.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @12:26AM
That's because you are assuming that your interpretation of the law is the "right" way to interpret.
People tend to assume that what they believe is correct is actually correct. People sometimes disagree with one another. Thanks for stating the obvious.
So I guess you don't disagree with anyone on the courts and have no positions on anything. What self-righteous nonsense you spew. Even the mere sight of disagreement with this nomination and perhaps others seems to disgust you. I assume, then, that you'd be fine with absolutely any nomination whatsoever and have zero opinions on the matter? Otherwise, you're clearly just being a righteous, bigoted idiot.
That's also why we have multiple judges in the first place, to make sure the morally self-righteous don't needlessly impose their will on the rest of us.
Yeah, I want to "impose" my will on you by not allowing the government to conduct mass surveillance on the populace, having accountability for police, and having a government that does not conduct warrantless surveillance. When I put it like that, it doesn't sound like I'm imposing anything on you. You must be confusing me with an authoritarian.
Yours is just a small part of the regular pundit cacophony that comes up every time there is a seat open on the Court.
No fucking shit, you dullard. You're not going to nominate someone to the Supreme Court and have no one disagree with your decision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @12:28AM
Do you do this bullshit every time someone says they voted for Candidate X instead of Candidate Y because they believe that Candidate X will better represent them? People tend to want a government that will represent them, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with wanting a Supreme Court justices who you believe will follow the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:55PM
Obama has done more for big business than many Republicans. That's the shittiest part of all.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:32PM
Obama, in nominating someone previously selected and voted to an important court, made a good move with a not-totally-radical, experienced nominee here. It also helps the guy is already in his 60s.
I've read elsewhere the prediction that the Republicans won't totally avoid a vote, but slow the process down so much that they will only vote on it after the November election. In that case, if Hillary wins, this guy will look like a moderate. If Trump wins, no vote will take place, and Trump withdraws the nominee or the nominee gives up himself.
In social media the only people making noise about this are already have strong political opinions. The undecided crowd has hardly noticed this as an issue for the election.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:39PM
it is entirely possible that the opportunity for a recess appointment occurs - let's not forget that this president, like him or not, has been the target at a great deal of harsh abuse simply because of who he is.
He's done plenty of stuff that's dodgy.
However, he only has a few months left and I would not put it past him to just appoint the guy, because the other side of the coin, is that who knows when the next judge retires or expires?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:57PM
It also helps the guy is already in his 60s.
How is this an argument in the discussion? These buggers live until they're 80 or older... That's still 20 years to do damage!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:19PM
Even if for some reason this guy makes it onto the court, but during a Clinton term (or between) rather than Obama, he is on the liberal side of the spectrum.
Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are all pretty old and could end up retiring (or doing a Scalia).
It was already recognized before Scalia died that this could be an important election for the Supreme Court. Imagine if Clinton won and managed to get a second term. Then you are looking at up to 85, 87, and 91 years of age for the three justices I mentioned.
Heck, (mainstream/establishment) Republicans have to be wary of Supreme Court picks during a Trump Presidency. I doubt he would pick his sister [spectator.org], but anybody could be on the table.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:13PM
Not a good omen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:02AM
It's an old money name.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:29PM
i think it's common sense law enforcement can demand access to a bank vault of a person that has killed many in a killing spree and witnessed by cctv and man people.
so in the same sense there should be a possibility for a phone manufacturer to grant access to a phones data if:
the original owner is indeed a (dead) terrorist
and the phone is in physical posession of law enforcement.
that leaves to determien when law enforcement can take physical possesion of a device (on a hunch at the airport? no?) (being shot by law enforcement and subdued thereafter? yes?)
and if law enforcement is allowed to remotely take possesion of the data the phone contains without having physical access. probably no.
so if you got a search warrent and physical possesion of the phone/device you give it to the bank (the bank doesnt give you the vault, they grant you access to the vault) ... errrr.... phone manufacturer and they stick a special device into the lightning port or whatnot and then have access to phones content.
it is thus technically possible to have real privacy and the means to stop possible future/further atrocities.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 17 2016, @09:38PM
Cops have all of the data they need from seized cell phones.
Oh, the data is encrypted? That's too bad. Also, offtopic.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday March 18 2016, @01:52AM
How do we close this loophole and prevent Congress from doing this kind of thing? What's to stop them from always voting "no" until all the SCOTUS members die out and there is no SCOTUS? Then what? Does anybody have standing to bring suit against Congress on such an issue?
Suits aside, we should at *least* have a Constitutional time limit for them to vote, and if they don't vote then the POTUS nomination takes office automatically. That doesn't solve the problem of them shooting down every nominee the POTUS sends their way; but it's a start. I guess the Founders didn't anticipate such dishonorable people holding these offices.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:44PM
What's to stop them from always voting "no" until all the SCOTUS members die out and there is no SCOTUS? Then what?
It's not constitutional, so it's subject to change by Congress, but here's the relevant law. [cornell.edu] Actually having no justices would be a problem (there would be no "majority of qualified justices" to decide whether the case could be heard next term), but the SCOTUS can "function" under that law (for appeals) with as few as one justice -- everything gets rubberstamped, but with no opinions or precedents. For cases originating in the Supreme Court, such as suing Congress, I really don't know.
But really, this is a theoretical problem -- in practice, by the time all SCOTUS justices die, we're all but certain to have had a President and Senate willing to cooperate -- as more seats are vacant, the pressure increases to compromise now and get a balanced court, rather than risking the other party gaining control of the Senate and stuffing all those seats.
That doesn't solve the problem of them shooting down every nominee the POTUS sends their way; but it's a start.
It's hard to make a solution to that "problem" that doesn't let POTUS, in some circumstances, nominate anyone with no recourse. This is vulnerable to abuse from the other side -- suppose some President nominates the head of the Klan, do you really want the Senate to have no ability to stop him? It seems no better than the current situation, where the Senate may refuse to confirm anyone except the head of the Klan.
Ultimately, the difference is, one way you're guaranteed to successfully appoint someone in finite time, but the appointee could be arbitrarily outrageous. The other way, the time for an appointment is unbounded (though a deadlock is unlikely to last more than a term of office for either POTUS or Senate), but the appointee is guaranteed to be acceptable to both the President and a majority of the Senate. I like the second one better, but I can see the appeal of the first.