U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died today at age 79

[Robert 21]

Justice Scalia's death will trigger lengthy battle over replacement

WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death will trigger a protracted battle over his replacement, one that may not end until 2017 after a new president is sworn into office.

The Supreme Court is down to eight members and must move forward with a heavy caseload with that number. As such, the court is effectively deadlocked, with four liberals and four conservatives — although Justice Anthony Kennedy often sides with the left.

That raises the stakes for the nation's conservatives — in Congress and prominent legal circles — to derail any nominee President Obama puts forward. Within minutes on Saturday, Republican lawmakers and conservative legal experts were demanding that the seat remain empty until the next president is elected.

Who could replace Scalia? Here are 10 names

WASHINGTON — Who could replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia if Republicans don't block all of President Obama's nominees, as appears likely? Here are 10 possibilities:

Sri Srinivasan: The 48-year-old federal appeals court judge was confirmed unanimously in 2013 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — a traditional stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. He would be the court's first Indian-American justice.


USA TODAY
Sri Srinivasan: Supreme Court justice in the making?

Patricia Millett: Srinivasan's 52-year-old colleague on the D.C. Circuit is popular in both parties and is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate. She argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court as an advocate.

Merrick Garland: At 63, Garland is older than most nominees, since presidents want their choices to stick around for decades on the bench. He is a moderate who serves as chief judge on the D.C. Circuit court and could be a compromise choice.

Kamala Harris: California's attorney general, 51, could be another leading candidate. She has the added luster of holding political office, a life experience that is sorely lacking on the Supreme Court. She's currently running for the U.S. Senate seat of retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Deval Patrick: The former governor of Massachusetts, 59, is a close friend of the president who served in the Justice Department during President Bill Clinton's administration.

Amy Klobuchar: If the Senate would be less inclined to block one of its own, the senior senator from Minnesota, 55, might be someone Obama would consider.

Goodwin Liu: He was Obama's choice for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010, but Republicans blocked his nomination, making him a less likely choice now. At 45, he sits on the California Supreme Court.

Paul Watford: A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Watford, 48, is another Obama nominee with a potentially stellar future.

Jane Kelly: She is a 51-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit who was a career public defender. From Iowa, she has enjoyed the prior support of Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

David Barron: He is a 48-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District.

***DO YOUR JOB***

 

[transatlantic]

Of course Obama, as the current POTUS should nominate to fill the SCOTUS vacancy.

At least GOP is being honest by saying no way instead of saying "we'll work with Obama to confirm a candidate reflective of what the American public wants" and then obstruct the nominee at every opportunity.

 

[talkinghead]

Of course, indeed. In fact, Obama has a responsibility to do so. The math is pretty simple: Obama has 342 days left in his presidency, and on average it has taken 25 days to confirm, reject, or have the nominee's name withdrawn. It has never taken more than 125 days for a vote, and it has been nearly 30 years since a nominee has been rejected. There is plenty of time, and it could be disastrous to go an entire year with a vacant seat. The fact that Republicans (and perhaps many on this board) don't want another Obama appointee is understandable, and entirely beside the point in this case.

 

[Marie Montreal]

Great day for humanity.
What is gonna happend to Clarence, who's pocket dog is he gonna be now?

 

[dbiz2]

Great day for humanity.
What is gonna happend to Clarence, who's pocket dog is he gonna be now?

Ouch!!! Be nice to Clarence, he's in mourning....probably trying to get in touch with Anita Hill for some grief counseling

 

[cpp433]

The question asks 2 questions??? Im sure hell try hopefully the house and senate block it

 

[Marie Montreal]

Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.

Hey Dbiz, if you happend to know Ruth, can you tell her I am free to be her new companion for opera night, I am very good company, she won't miss Tony once she knows me!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.

Exactly. As for the nutty Republicans and their beloved Tea party, they'll do whatever their billionaire donors and the Koch brothers will tell them to do. I've never seen a political party as owned by billionaires and special interest groups like this version of the Republican party.

The damage they've done to the country over the past 16 years will hurt the country for decades!

"Hey Republicans, win a Presidential election for once! This way, you'll get to decide who gets on the Supreme Court. That's all you have to do in order to get another crazy right-winger on the Court!"

 

[Marie Montreal]

Hey Monsieur Holliday, I am celebrating Scalia's death, why do you remind me that the Kosh brothers are still around!! Yark.

 

[dbiz2]

Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.

Hey Dbiz, if you happend to know Ruth, can you tell her I am free to be her new companion for opera night, I am very good company, she won't miss Tony once she knows me!

That would be an interesting encounter. Let me know if it happens...I might pay to watch that

 

[Doc Holliday]

I laugh out loud when i hear the Republicans crapping all over their appointee John Roberts. Look, there are only two times when he ruled against their interests & political agenda and he actually got it right. The way their acting, he's become a big-time liberal and has never voted in their favor ever since his nomination. Hillarious!!!

By the way, Trump was 100% correct in that debate last night. George W. Bush WAS responsible for 9/11 and did NOT keep the country safe!! He's a war criminal!!! And Ted Cruz is the biggest liar he's met!!! Great debate!!!!

Heck, if Trump promised to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes, i think he'd actually have a great shot at becoming the next POTUS!!! :thumb:

 

[CaptRenault]

The question asks 2 questions??? Im sure hell try hopefully the house and senate block it

The House of Representatives has nothing to do with the process. A new justice must be confirmed only by a majority vote of the Senate.

Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so.

Obama will nominate someone and that someone will certainly be a very liberal judge. However, the Senate must confirm the nominee by a majority vote. in the current Congress , the Republicans hold a 54-46 majority over Democrats (including the two "independents" who always vote with the Democrats). It is inconceivable that with only 8 months to go until the next presidential election, 5 Republicans would vote with the Democrats to confirm the kind of liberal judge that Obama will nominate. If they did, they would signing their own death warrants for the next time they are up for election. Nevertheless, Obama will go ahead and nominate someone but there is no chance his nominee will be confirmed. Stay tuned until 2017.

"Hey Republicans, win a Presidential election for once! This way, you'll get to decide who gets on the Supreme Court...

Since the end of WWII, Democrats have won 8 presidential elections (with a total of 6 presidents) and Republicans have won 9 presidential elections (with a total of 5 presidents). The current SC has a balance of liberal and conservative judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans with a swing judge in the middle. Looking at those numbers, I would say that the Republicans have won their fair share of elections.

 

[CaptRenault]

Hey Monsieur Holliday, I am celebrating Scalia's death...

I'm always amused when I see Canadians express such strong feelings of hatred (and sometimes love) towards American politicians and other leaders. They seem much more interested in American political and other leaders than in their own. There are more threads on MERB about Obama and Bush (the former president, not the female pubic hair ) than there are about Trudeau and Harper. Are Canadian political affairs really that boring?

On the other hand, though most Americans have a favorable opinion about Canada and Canadians, they care little about what happens in the Great White North and could not tell you who is the current prime minister of Canada. Despite Justin's famous and highly accomplished father, the former drama teacher's last name is recognizable only to some hardcore left-wingers in the U.S. Most Americans do not know and do not care that Canada even has a Supreme Court. Very few Americans could recognize the name of even one member of the Canadian SC. Americans would be surprised to learn that Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth!

There is a strange imbalance between the two countries when it comes to the different levels of interest that the people of each country have in the leaders and political affairs of its neighboring country.

 

[dbiz2]

In twenty years of adjunct faculty teaching American political science courses at more than a few colleges/universities, the Canadian college/university students I had were head and shoulders above in their knowledge of the U.S. political system than their native born Americans counterparts.

 

[dbiz2]

I read that very significant percentage of young people in the United States think that Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

On the positive side, a very strong argument can be made that it does not really matter.

Politics and law are overrated, and have merely become part of entertainment for most people.

Technology and science makes a lot of this irrelevant. Wars are fought enough through technology and the sky to keep large ground actions such as Vietnam from happening. Politics was important in the 1960s and 1970s primarily as a result of Vietnam, but is less important now. Even when politics and law intersect, technology is critical. Although I would certainly prefer that abortion be legal and that sex education be part of school curriculums, it is just not as important as it once was. Kids can learn about sex on the Internet without all the fighting that goes on between progressives and moralists. And people can buy very effective birth control, including the morning after pill, over the counter; often using self checkout lines without having some old moralistic checkout lady giving them a nasty look. So there really should be less need for the abortions that I hope always remain legal. But all of this stuff mattered more in the 1980s and 1990s than it does today.

And of course in our favorite area, technology is invaluable. Who would want to go through all of the bullshit associated with decriminalizing prostitution and the inevitable government regulation of commercial sex, when the Internet allows the transaction to occur in a manner invisible to the police.

Young people can only learn so much, and they have done wonderfully with technological inventions. So I am always optimistic that the opportunity cost of not learning political science was spent on better education in science and technology.

I have to disagree on the lack of importance in knowing one's governmental system AND the nature of politics within it. Politics is who get what when and how. Those that control the distribution (the who--and not the rock band) of the when and how are said to have power. And having power in any political system, particularly concentrated power, leads to abuses of power and corruption within that system. While it might seem a simplistic view, there are many examples within any governmental/political system how concentrated power has lead to the scenario I describe.

Your example of students learning about technology leaving them very little time or interest in studying American government is somewhat flawed. As George Santayana stated, "those who do no learn from the past are condemned to repeat it" rings true in many political events that happen in the U.S. Those same technology and science people you say replace politics as a point of interest are greatly influenced by actions taken by political actors that impact their bottom line. As the WSJ reported on Thursday, February 11, 2016, many Fortune 500 (and even Fortune 100) companies are holding back on capital investment in light of what is occurring in the financial markets. Additionally, on-going concerns over the rising U.S. debt, whether Janet Yellen and the Fed will continue to increase interest rates, falling foreign financial markets, and the possibility of the U.S. electing a populous president aimed at the 1% to resolve all the nation's ills, have led all the CEOs to "stand pat" on future capital investment decisions. Why people cannot understand that the actions of political leaders, at the state and national level, impact economic growth and contraction is beyond me.

So yeah kiddies, you keep on learning technology and science--that's a good thing. But not knowing how government impacts those decisions (passing laws that regulate patents, introduction of new drugs, and yes, the ability to have that three martini with your favorite SP lunch as a business expense ) is a fatal mistake. And that's whether you are in favor or oppose to government.

 

[CaptRenault]

..the Canadian college/university students I had were head and shoulders above in their knowledge of the U.S. political system than their native born Americans counterparts.

I'm sure that most of those same Canadian students are celebrating Scalia's death along with Mlle. Simone. What do Canadians do when one of their Supreme Court justices die? Do they even notice?

Also, it's not surprising that American students don't know anything about government, history and other topics related to dead white males. American students study more important subjects like racism, sexism, feminism, socialism, etc.

 

[CaptRenault]

...the possibility of the U.S. electing a populous president aimed at the 1% to resolve all the nation's ills...

I think you mean "populist" (not "populous" ). And if you're talking about Trump, he's not the candidate of the 1%. If anyone is, it's probably Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton--they are the ones who have raked in the most donations from Wall Street. Trump's anti-free trade beliefs (which are very close to the other populist in the race, the socialist candidate Bernie Sanders) are very scary to the 1% and anyone else who has a basic grasp of how a free economy works.

 

[dbiz2]

I think you mean "populist" (not "populous" ). And if you're talking about Trump, he's not the candidate of the 1%. If anyone is, it's probably Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton--they are the ones who have raked in the most donations from Wall Street. Trump's anti-free trade beliefs (which are very close to the other populist in the race, the socialist candidate Bernie Sanders) are very scary to the 1% and anyone else who has a basic grasp of how a free economy works.

my bad...too quick with the keys

 

[dbiz2]

I think you mean "populist" (not "populous" ). And if you're talking about Trump, he's not the candidate of the 1%. If anyone is, it's probably Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton--they are the ones who have raked in the most donations from Wall Street. Trump's anti-free trade beliefs (which are very close to the other populist in the race, the socialist candidate Bernie Sanders) are very scary to the 1% and anyone else who has a basic grasp of how a free economy works.

Nope referring to the so called Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. And while you believe its a "done deal," i.e., Hillary and Jeb, both are having problems with their respective support groups, hence Jeb calling in Bush 43 to South Carolina and Hillary hoping to make in roads with the minority groups that favored Bill during his run for the presidency. Additionally, Hillary has problems corralling the under 45 female age group and definitely the under 30 that supported Barack Obama's run to the White House. Ironically, the under 30 female voter group have already said that electing the first female president is not as important as having one that will attack their perception of the unequal economic balance in the U.S. Apparently having Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem come speak for Hillary doesn't carry the same historical weight for this age cohort--and to the fault of these icons and those of their ilk for not enlightening the younger generation of the historical and continued discriminatory aspects of women rights in the U.S. For this group the concern is jobs, wages, growing student debt, and their share of the economy.

Similarly, because the 1% are perceived to have it all, much to the detriment of the shrinking middle class and the growing lower income middle income households ($35K-$75K) and working class households ($16K-$30K). Those within these brackets, particularly with working class households, the words of Donald Trump ringing true, right or wrong--to the chagrin of the 1%. The point is not whether Trump is the eventual Republican presidential nominee, it's just that his message addresses a group that may have adhered to the Republican message, but have felt disengaged by the party--which could lead to disastrous consequences in the November election, i.e., Reagan Democrats in 1980 and 1984. Additionally, its forcing the standard "old guard" Republican candidates to shift their messages into un-chartered territories and not stand pat on their usual themes. Donald Trump is saying what they may think, but dare not say. Eventually he will likely get crushed, but then the new "fair haired" child will have to incorporate a message in their platform that will address the concerns of Trump's supporters: jobs, wages and the economy.

Nothing is done till it's done...by the middle/end of March, things will get more into focus. But I wouldn't toss the Donald or Bernie to the side just yet...

 

[CaptRenault]

And while you believe its a "done deal," i.e., Hillary and Jeb...

I didn't say anything is a "done deal" in the presidential election--it's certainly not at this early stage of primary season. I just said that Hillary and Bush are the candidates who have received the most money from "the 1%". I also said that both Trump and Sanders are populists. I find both of them to be equally unacceptable as candidates for the presidency.

But let's get back to discussing Antonin Scalia, a justice who believed that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they actually meant what they said. This concept is hard for Canadians to understand (as well as many Americans), because while Canada has a semblance of a Constitution, the Constitution of Canada is not a constitution in the same sense that the American Constitution is one.