Patterico's Pontifications

I just saw this – my God, what a shock. Also, just terrible news, that means Obama gets to pick his replacement.

Dianna (004c4f) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:27 pm

I cringe to imagine what Obama’s official statement is going to say.

And I cringe even more to think about the ghoulish delight that some on the left will take. Better stay off Facebook for the rest of the weekend.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:30 pm

Zero chance Obama picks his replacement. Zero.

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:33 pm

And now the election is no longer about immigration. It is about the Court.

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:34 pm

I was just reading his US vs Jones decision yesterday for a work issue, and remarking on the clarity of his thinking. We knew this would come to pass sooner rather than later given his girth, but it’s still a shock.

As far as appointments go, I doubt that any successor will be confirmed this session. If the GOP wants to elect any Senators in 2016, they had better not. Slow walk any nomination, then defeat it. Repeat.

Or else say goodbye to the Republican Party.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:34 pm

Beyond the brilliant jurisprudence, his legacy should be in his biting prose, best showcased in his dissents. Here is the gem from last summer’s Obergefell decision:

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Thank you, sir. You deserve entry into the Hallowed Halls of the Great Crumudgeons.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:37 pm

Someone needs to update this classic and issue a new edition.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:39 pm

I am not as hopeful about this gutless Senate blocking an Obama nominee. Mitch and Co. will make noises about only approving someone who will pay at least a modicum of respect to the Constitution, but they will end up bending over when it is all said and done.

Jeff Lebowski (e2dbe6) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:42 pm

Horrible news? No. Just live going on.

Obama should nominate Cruz for SCOTUS spot. Would make for quite an interesting decision-making scenario.

DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:43 pm

We must be sure to thank Harry Reid for his re-rigging of Senate rules to get the Judiciary he wanted. All Mitch need do is follow the Dhimmicrat Leader’s example.

Here’s my prediction…Mitch will ignore the opening Harry has given him and will bow to pressure and allow a vote. BHO will get his nominee on the court.

Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:43 pm

Statement by Chief Justice Roberts:

On behalf of the Court and retired Justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:44 pm

R.I.P., Nino – and play nice with John Marshall.

askeptic (efcf22) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:44 pm

In Jones, cops had attached a GPS device to Jones’ car and tracked him for over a month. They had a warrant be they had exceeded it’s bounds in almost all regards, effectively voiding it. The appeals court threw out the evidence on the basis of GPS intruding on an expectation of privacy. And the fool cops took it to the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled 9-0 that the evidence was indeed out, but Scalia wrote an opinion that the cops like rather a lot worse. He said that it wasn’t that GPS was a problem (maybe it was) but by the simple act of attaching it to the car without a warrant, it might have been a red dot, it was turning a person’s effects into a tool of surveillance and even James Madison could have called that one.

Gonna miss Antonine Scalia.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:44 pm

I was doing some outdoorsy things, and thus off the grid for a few hours. Just heard this deeply sad news a minute ago.

He died in the west Texas area of Marfa, which is where George Stevens filmed his 1956 classic, “Giant,” starring Rock Hudson, Liz Taylor, and James Dean in his final role.

Justice Scalia was an intellectual Giant.

As Patterico mentioned, this should change the topic of conversation in the GOP primary. I don’t know that Trump has the chops to even engage in a discussion about the Court and fidelity to the Constitution. Saying that you’ll nominate someone “great,” who will do a “great job,” and that it’ll be “great” and “terrific” is likely not going to be a “good” enough answer.
Hopefully, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will seize upon this opportunity to convince Trump Fans that we live in times which are too consequential to nominate someone like Trump.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:45 pm

Moderation, Patterico?

“Still Crazy After All These Years.”

DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:45 pm

Aw, s**t!

nk (dbc370) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:47 pm

Ted has tirelessly championed the fight of what grave danger our nation will be if BO appoints a another liberal socialist judge. Ted and we are seeing the nightmare unfold before election 2016

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former Supreme Court clerk now seeking the GOP’s presidential nomination, called Scalia “one of the greatest justices in history” and insisted that Obama leave the job of filling the vacancy to the winner of the November elections.

“We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement,” Cruz, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Twitter.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:48 pm

God Help US

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:48 pm

Mitch says NO

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-no-new-justice-this-year/article/2583231

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:48 pm

Advice and consent suggests that consent might be withheld.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:49 pm

Obama heard of this gift as I’m sure he sees it….. as he is flying to CA for yet another vacation/campaign trip….

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:50 pm

I hope Scalia from where he is now can have great power… and maybe haunt the crap out of BO.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:51 pm

I note that Judge Maryanne Trump Barry is 78. Just sayin’

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:51 pm

The time for being children is over. Our nation as we have known it is at stake.

Please join me in supporting the petition to Carson and Kasich to drop from the race. We cannot allow Trump to divide and conquer thinking conservatives.

http://www.info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/02/carson-should-quit.html

Paul Deignan (203cde) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:52 pm

Trumps sister is a judge… most likely liberal and Trump is no stranger to nepotism

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:54 pm

And now the election is no longer about immigration. It is about the Court.

oh my goodness that’s so elitist

hordes of diseased zika-infested immigrants are taking real jobs away from real american families that are really really suffering in this filthy obamaraped economy

the court is important but it’s all about ivy league trash power games

that’s not what this election is about it’s just not

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:55 pm

This is what people are talking about when they say that elections have consequences. There’s a lot of people who sat out the 2012 election because they felt Mitt Romney was not conservative enough. Okay, he certainly wasn’t the second coming of Ronald Reagan, but Mitt Romney would never in a million years nominate someone in the same ballpark as whom Barack is going to nominate.
We will rid ourselves of Barack next January 20. But this forthcoming new Supreme Court Justice is going to be a lifetime appointment.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:55 pm

Better stay off Facebook for the rest of the weekend.

And the Sunday talk shows too.

Patricia (5fc097) — 2/13/2016 @ 3:59 pm

SCALIA to be the wind beneath Ted’s wings…. God Bless Ted

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:00 pm

sometimes you can be kind of weird JRT lady

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:01 pm

25. Soros stole the election for BO in 2012 and Mitt rolled over and played dead… not contesting the obvious fraud…. Look around you at the amount of evidence that could indict Hillary and BO the media and AG ignore. We are living in a Banana Republic and only Ted Cruz can save us all.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:04 pm

are you just mad because I asked you if you were gay? did you ever answer?

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:05 pm

BO will self appoint himself or Mooch.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:09 pm

i’m not mad at all in honor of poor dead judge scalia i made my first batch of jewish spaghetti

it’ll soak up the sauce and cool on the stove til bedtime then tomorrow morning i’ll bake it up

it loooks very very promising so far

and it’s crazy how frooger it is

not a lot of protein though

I wanted to use the barilla protein pasta but the package is not quite a full pound 🙁

i hate when they do that sneaky stuff

so for the first batch i wanted to follow the recipe exact

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:10 pm

Congress had 8 years to impeach BO and now it comes to this….

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:11 pm

*looks* very very promising i mean

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:11 pm

There is absolutely no chance the GOP will confirm any Obama nominee. The earthquake that would result would make the Trump phenomenon seem like a minor tremor.

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:16 pm

JRT,

There’s no reason to be inquiring about commenters’ personal lives. But if you want to challenge happyfeet about his dedication to Trump, pizza, or cupcakes, that’s totally within reason.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:18 pm

Don’t think POTUS has the guts to try it, but imagine Obama offering Cruz the SCOTUS spot.

What would Cruz do? If he turns it down, conservatives may be furious with him for it and expose his fear of running the gauntlet of a Senate confirmation process by colleagues who literally hate his guts. And if he accepts and tried for it, ending his presidential run, it makes Trump the all but certain GOP nominee.

DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:19 pm

cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war,

http://obamaspeeches.com/048-Supreme-Court-Nomination-of-Samuel-Alito-Obama-Podcast.htm

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:19 pm

35. When has BO not gotten any of his declarations….DC bows to him

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:20 pm

I can hear it now…the GOP is shutting down the SCOTUS. Mitch gonna cave.

Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:21 pm

I was only curious , as I said in my original intent… what makes him such a faithful followe of Trump. I find Trumps followers mostly disgruntled democrats, so if he were gay it would confirm my suspicions…

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:23 pm

i wonder if sleazy judge roberts will speak up in favor of an immediate replacement

(only ivy league trash need apply)

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:24 pm

What a terrible loss for the nation!

And, sad to say, I don’t believe McConnell’s reassurances that they won’t allow a nomination for SCOTUS because they appear to be fast-tracking a bunch of other appointments.

WarEagle82 (3f92a9) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:26 pm

If they even think about having a vote, those upcoming primaries will be bloody and there will be sitting Senators and Congress people switching to Tea Party membership.

We are already sitting at the end of the Sixth Party system. This will probably define the direction of the next one, at least on the right.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:27 pm

BO: I declare Michelle O. the next supreme court justice…. DC which is republicans in bed with democrats , that now have their hate for Ted Cruz in common….OK.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:27 pm

JRT,

Editing one’s thoughts is key.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:30 pm

Most of America is stupid….a girlfriend of mine ask me out for drinks and when I declined because I wanted to watch the debates tonight she says…. Cruz will get impeached if he wins and then we’ll be stuck …. can you believe how stupid people are……BO and Hilary can get away with murder….BUT all of a sudden congress and the senate will move to impeach the first Reaganite to hit the office… We are screwed.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:34 pm

When discussing this with Democrats who think that holding off is somehow unheard of…

1) The time from Justice Powell’s retirement to Judge Bork’s vote was 3 months and it was 4 more months until Justice Kennedy was confirmed.

2) Harry Reid withheld votes from MANY appellate court judges during Bush’s terms. Some were waiting years for a vote and gave up.

And, ask this: Suppose it was February 2008, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg suddenly dies. What would partisan Democrats think if the Democrat majority of the Senate even considered approving a right-wing nominee from lame duck President George W Bush?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:35 pm

45. That’s called lying to ones self. and I never try and lie to myself.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:35 pm

“Today our country lost an unwavering champion of a timeless document that unites each of us as Americans. Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning‎ of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.

The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said in a statement.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:35 pm

JRT–

I’m probably alone, but I’m not enjoying all the fanboy stuff.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:37 pm

44. self editing….”are” not is…..I took out the now to shorten but forgot to change the is to an are

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:37 pm

JRT, you don’t always have to click on “Submit Comment.”

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:41 pm

I disagree with Patterico that there’s a zero chance Obama picks Scalia’s replacement.

Oh, I hope Patterico is right, but I suspect otherwise. The Democrats want this, and what’s standing in their way? Mitch McConnel. How well has that worked out for us before? Like, every single time?

I rate the chances of another Sotomayor joining the court as way the heck above zero.

Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:43 pm

P.S. Zero chance Obama gets a nominee confirmed. None.

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:44 pm

Suppose Obama nominates himself.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:45 pm

hang in there Kevin

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:47 pm

this is the same senate that confirmed wilhemina wright, quevedo sic, and a whole host of other horror shows,

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:48 pm

Hillary already said she would appoint him.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:48 pm

P.S. Zero chance Obama gets a nominee confirmed. None.

Agreed. Far be it for me to defend McConnell, but he’s not stupid and he knows that the GOP coalition would be badly damaged if he allowed a nominee to go through this year. I saw a quick round-up of lefty thought on Twitter and even they know that this will be held over until January 2017.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:49 pm

Pat–

What do you see as the consequences to McConnell, the presidential nomination process, the November election, and the Party long-term if the Senate moves forward with a Court nomination?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:49 pm

In fact the left seems to relish the idea that this will extend until January 2017, because they figure President Clinton or President Sanders will have a Democrat majority in the Senate to work with.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:50 pm

Hillary already said she would appoint him.

Of course, she’d have to avoid a criminal indictment for that to happen, eh?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:52 pm

1 hour til debates

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:54 pm

Trump will talk about his sister, who seems to be the oddball of the family — that is to say, not a braggart, not a lawbreaker, and a pretty well-respected federal judge.

Other than that, he’ll just dissolve into his usual barrage of empty superlatives: He’s going to pick the best person, they will be great, you will be so proud of President Trump for saving the Supreme Court, etc.

But yeah, this gives Sen. Cruz something new to talk about that is absolutely, positively in his wheelhouse.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:56 pm

What do you see as the consequences to McConnell, the presidential nomination process, the November election, and the Party long-term if the Senate moves forward with a Court nomination?

No point in speculating about something that is not going to happen.

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:57 pm

I expect that Obama will use this opportunity to make a completely disingenuous nomination, knowing that there is no chance it will be approved. Former AG Holder, for example.

Racists!

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:57 pm

ah counselor, you are so confident that mcturtle will be gandalf, based on what history?

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 4:59 pm

it is rare that one is able to deliver dissents of uncompromising ferocity, coupled with logic,

http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/12/scalia-was-right-about-releasing-gitmo-detainees/

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:01 pm

Former AG Holder, for example.

Maybe, but on the other hand I don’t think Obama would be keen to have Holder’s record reexamined. And the GOP could always schedule hearings on the Holder nomination and use it as an opportunity to rehash Fast & Furious, Lois Lerner, Black Panthers, etc., yet still not bother to schedule a vote.

If Obama wants to pander knowing he gets a freebie he’ll probably appoint the gay California judge who overturned Prop 8.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:01 pm

Or, if Obama really wants to make mischief, is here some liberal Democrat Cuban-American jurist that he can nominate for the court?

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:03 pm

I pray you’re right. I fear a recess appointment despite the fact that SCOTUS turned back Obama’s last attempt to abuse the appointment and confirmation process.

crazy (cde091) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:05 pm

Ted Cruz – “I will refuse to show up for any quorum call related to advancing any nomination. Marco – for once, it would be a great idea for you to continue your practice of not showing up, as well.”

What would you give for that moment tonight?

Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:07 pm

April 23, 2015 – 02:04 PM EDT

“Senate votes 56-43 to confirm Lynch as attorney general”

Ten Republican senators broke ranks and sided with Democrats to get Lynch over the 50-vote threshold: Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239878-senate-votes-to-confirm-lynch-as-attorney-general

sound awake (04e750) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:12 pm

The first question is whether McConnell would exercise severe party discipline to prevent anyone from voting for whomever Obama nominates, not whether McConnell himself would vote against the nominee. Absent that, as others have pointed out in comments to the previous post, all Obama would need would be a very few GOP defectors, first in the Judiciary Committee and then in the floor vote.

The second question is whether McConnell would permit a SCOTUS nominee to be filibustered, given that the Dems (disingenuously) claim that they haven’t already nuked the filibuster when they rammed through a bunch of Obama’s circuit and district court judges when the Dems still controlled the Senate.

I can think of a half dozen prominent circuit judges and law professors whom Obama would claim are “moderate, centrist” nominees, with respect to whom I have no confidence that the GOP will be effective in blocking.

But I’m still terrified that he’ll resign so that Pres. Biden can nominate him (Obama), and that Obama could indeed be confirmed, narrowly, via a few GOP defectors’ votes.

I hope, though, that our host is right. And there’s recent precedent for obstructing a very-late-term nomination by a lame-duck president: LBJ left office in January 1969 with an open SCOTUS seat — the Chief Justice’s position, in fact, which was vacated when Chief Justice Earl Warren resigned in June 1968, on the brink of an election (in which LBJ was no longer running) — after the GOP minority slow-walked LJB’s nomination of his own personal lawyer, then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas. We now know beyond any doubt that Fortas was still acting as LBJ’s political adviser while sitting on the SCOTUS in violation of every principle of judicial ethics and separation of powers. Although Fortas had easily been confirmed to his seat as an Associate Justice, by the summer and fall of 1968, he was already in a comparatively bad odor; if LJB had picked someone less controversial, he almost certainly could have pushed him through before leaving office. But as it was, Richard Nixon got to nominate the new CJ, and picked Warren Burger.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:12 pm

“Senate confirms Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court”

She will be the 111th justice, the third woman and first Hispanic on high court.

Nine Republicans join unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html

sound awake (04e750) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:16 pm

I think that Barack Obama wants to go the Bill Clinton route and make $400,000 a pop giving bland speeches to adoring crowds, and living the high life financed by some bogus self-started foundation. I don’t think he wants to muck around on the Court. Remember that this is a guy who seems very uninterested in policy; I can’t see him wanting to pore through boring legal briefs and amici curiae, let alone listen to oral arguments.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:19 pm

I’m raising a glass of root beer to toast and honor Justice Scalia as I sit and watch Talking Heads in “Stop Making Sense”. What a glorious music-making machine they were. No excuses, for some reason, I just needed cheering up today.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:19 pm

he’s also dumber than a luke bryan song

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:19 pm

Senate Confirms Kagan To U.S. Supreme Court
Updated August 6, 20109:09 AM ET

Kagan, 50, nominated by President Obama to replace retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, was confirmed with those Republican votes and all but one of the 57 Democratic senators.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129005079

sound awake (04e750) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:20 pm

his thing, is fundamental transformation, going back his first gig at chicago, where he mentored the head of the civil rights division, at DOJ

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:20 pm

Ed from SFV,

Has Marco missed actually important votes that you can point to? I realized he’s missed votes as he’s been campaigning, but I’m guessing they were more of the variety of “We’re voting to re-name the Akron Post Office for William McKinley” than “We’re voting to reject the Iran Deal.”

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:23 pm

Re dangers from an Obama recess appointment:

I believe the tradition, and perhaps internal SCOTUS rules, provide that when a Justice dies in office, any pending cases in which his vote might have been determinative are re-argued. That typically results in a delay of at least 8-10 months. So it’s unlikely that a recess appointment who’s only on the Court for a few months can actually do much to change precedents unless he or she is confirmed in the regular course during the next Senate session.

Quite a few SCOTUS Justices have indeed started out as “recess appointments” — including, relatively recently, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Potter Stewart, and William Brennan (all of whom started as Eisenhower recess appointees). But that’s from a time when the Senate took long and regular recesses. The current SCOTUS has slapped Obama down for trying to claim appointees were “recess appointees” when the Senate contends that it wasn’t in recess; so the Senate can effectively block Obama from doing that by staying out of a formal recess until it’s too late to matter.

Again, we rely on GOP Senate leadership to be an effective foil. And its recent track record isn’t encouraging.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:24 pm

Obama should nominate Ted Cruz. How much of a mindfuck would THAT be?

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 14, 2016

Patterico (d5f843) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:26 pm

Ten Republican senators broke ranks and sided with Democrats to get Lynch

Well, this was a normal cabinet appointment and presidents get to pick those, within reason. This was the edge of reason. A effing Supreme Court pick, especially one that alters the balance of the Court, is a different matter and if you don’t understand that you need to find a less challenging blog to post on. ANY GOP Senator who voted to approve nearly and Obama pick (in theory he could pick Cruz) would be in his last term in office even if we had to elect a Democrat to do it.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:27 pm

DING DONG the witch is dead burn in hell! Was he watching ted cuz’s porno actress movie debbie does ted cruz when satan called him home?

bush v gore (7556ba) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:27 pm

As has been said, Trump can end this battle tonight by pledging that as president, he will appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:28 pm

@86. See 39.

Way ahead of you. As usual.

DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:28 pm

Perry shows the class that he has come to be noted for. What a sad fuckwit he is.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:29 pm

is investigating Scalia’s murder up to the same cowardly FBI poofters who are afraid to indict Hillary?

i wished i lived in a better country this one sucks poopers

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:29 pm

But that’s from a time when the Senate took long and regular recesses.

And anyone want to bet whether TPTB in the Senate had signed off on Warren, Stewart and Brennan at the time?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:29 pm

Obama nominates Luis Gutierrez to teh Supreme Court… film at eleven.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:30 pm

Where was Bill Ayers last night?

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:31 pm

Patrick: Could you explain your certainty? I’m genuinely hoping you’re right and perhaps you can reassure me.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:31 pm

Issa made note- believe Senate term ends 1/3/17. Obama has 17 days to 1/20/17 to recess appoint if it got to that.

DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:32 pm

“Holder confirmed: 75-21; Why GOP Sen. Bond voted yes: He’s a “good listener;” Roll call vote added

By Michelle Malkin • February 2, 2009 07:03

A group of nearly 20 GOP senators joined all Democrats in supporting his nomination to lead President Obama’s Justice Department. Twenty-one Republicans voted against his confirmation.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/02/holder-confirmed-75-21/

sound awake (04e750) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:32 pm

But I’m still terrified that he’ll resign so that Pres. Biden can nominate him (Obama), and that Obama could indeed be confirmed, narrowly, via a few GOP defectors’ votes.

Yes, please. Then we turn him down.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:33 pm

Beldar, one great thing about the Senate is that only 1/3 of its members are up for election each cycle, so McConnell could conceivably keep the Senate in session through the summer and fall to prevent the recess appointment. Naturally there wouldn’t be a quorum, but McConnell probably has no reason to hang out in Kentucky anymore so he can fart around Washington while everyone else is out there campaigning.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:34 pm

Obama will nominate someone, even if it’s a doomed nomination. Rahm’s Rule is still honored at the Obama White House: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

If he can’t get someone actually seated, he’ll choreograph things in a way that he calculates will do the most damage to his political enemies. (That might not be limited to Republicans, though.)

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:35 pm

q: what’s the difference between a pot of jewish spaghetti and mainlining crack?

a: there is no difference is same same

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:36 pm

If Obama can get Loretta Lynch through the Senate, why do you think Biden couldn’t get Obama through the Senate?

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:36 pm

Obama nominates Castro.

mg (31009b) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:37 pm

he has made a travismockasham with the Alito nomination, he has deigned to delegitimize the decision of supreme court decision, what makes you think he will hold back.

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:38 pm

Zero chance Obama picks his replacement. Zero.

Have you been paying attention to the Republican leadership in Washington D,C.? As soon as the MSM begins attacking him, McConnell will cave, and we’ll probably end up with Kamala Harris or Anita Hill.

gahrie (12cc0f) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:39 pm

If the Senate were to confirm ANYONE other than, say, Cruz, they would lose the Party. It would tear into at least two pieces overnight. The GOP rump, the Teas and the Peronists would be my guess.

Even McConnell knows that the party is under existential stress and that this would be a bomb thrown in.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:39 pm

Obama will nominate someone, even if it’s a doomed nomination.

Yes. #66.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:40 pm

If Obama can get Loretta Lynch through the Senate, why do you think Biden couldn’t get Obama through the Senate?

Because one is a time-limited cabinet post that will still be filled by acting officials anyway, and the other is a horrible idea that will outlive many of us. Having him resign in the hope of it though — I could get behind that in a Lucy/Charlie Brown/football sense.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:43 pm

This is the moment that may fit us all under the big tent.
Game On Team Republican. Do Your Job.

mg (31009b) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:44 pm

The more you think about it, the more sense it makes… https://t.co/ZPDxYXnUEM

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:46 pm

Beldar, your hypothetical regarding Obama resigning and then being appointed by Biden to the Supreme Court is interesting. However, wouldn’t it appear to be TOO self-serving to the American people if he were to do that? I realize we live in the Age of Kim Kardashian, but I still have confidence that the mushy moderates/”independents” who generally decide presidential elections would react to it something like, “So Barack resigned and then had his buddy Joe Biden nominate him to a lifetime position on the Court?”

As a lawyer, your job is to map out all the potential possibilities. It’s definitely well reasoned on your end, but don’t you think too many voters would find it to be too cute by half if Barack were to follow through with it?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:47 pm

To really answer the McConnell question:

Is there any non-troll here who things that the GOP should hold a vote for an Obama appointee? Speak up with your reasons?

Because I think we are all agreed. It will be interesting to see if there are any GOP contenders who think differently. Kasich? We’re looking at you.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:48 pm

Yeah, Obama’s speaking right now on national TV, and he’s already promising to nominate a replacement “in a timely fashion” and saying that he expects the Senate to vote on that nomination.

This will be a fight.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:50 pm

obama could not let it rest for one day. Pathetic human.

mg (31009b) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:52 pm

Hmmm… Empty Suit vows to perform his “constitutional duty”. So… all evidence to the contrary, he does appear to have heard of the document

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:53 pm

Kevin M. beat me to it.
If some how O does get a nominee confirmed, it will be the end of the Republican party,
And either Trump or a mad as h*** anti-Republican Cruz will be the next president.

MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:56 pm

It’s pretty staggering, particularly because Scalia seemed to be in such great health.

JEA (f5a284) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:57 pm

CZ: Obama got elected and reelected. “Too cute” is not a consideration that is likely to deter him, given that he knows that his base (whether they turn out to vote in 2016 or not) would be thrilled to see him on the SCOTUS.

This is the same guy who said on the record in press interviews that he thinks he’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, etc.

And you can’t shame the shameless.

He can make Biden into the POTUS whether anyone else likes it or not, so that half of the equation is a cinch. You don’t think Biden would repay the favor? I think he’d do it in a heartbeat.

I wish I were more confident that the Senate will turn down whomever he nominates. But I actually think he’s probably the most confirmable nominee, and maybe the only confirmable nominee, right now.

And suppose his nomination is defeated? If the Dems win the WH in November, either Bernie or Hillary might well nominate him. Hell, they’d probably fall all over themselves now in their hurry to promise they’d re-nominate him if Biden did a recess appointment. In the meantime, whether the Dems end up winning the WH in November or not, the Dems can campaign all fall on what RAAAAACISTS! that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are for voting against Obama.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:57 pm

On a whim I visited John Cole’s – was wondering if there would be any class from the opposition.

John was giddy in his celebrations, as was his loyal echo chamber.

Truly sad.

Steve Malynn (b5f891) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:57 pm

obama could not let it rest for one day. Pathetic human.

yup

typical harvardtrash slut, your president

just a nasty piece of work

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:58 pm

yes, he went to the underverse, and came back stranger,

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:58 pm

I think the only thing that would prevent O from getting nominated himself is the thought that it is too small of a job, and that he wants Sec. Gen. Of the UN

MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:58 pm

The outrage on the right over the quid-pro-quo would be comparable to the outrage on the left when Ford pardoned Nixon.

How many days did Nixon serve in jail as a result of all that outrage? None.

Although the pardon, plus Ford’s Free Poland debate gaffe, did probably shift enough voters in 1976 to explain Ford’s loss to Jimmy Carter.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:59 pm

Justice Scalia’s next of kin have yet to identify the body, yet already Barack is in full Machiavellian mode. But when a jihadist murders Americans, it normally takes Barack a few days to gather his thoughts.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/13/2016 @ 5:59 pm

MD, I don’t agree with how Obama would assess those two jobs. Maybe if he could turn the UN-SecGen into a powerful position, he might want it. But it’s not powerful, it’s almost totally symbolic. By contrast, Mr. Justice Obama, taking over from Scalia, could turn the SCOTUS on a dime and keep it there for a long time even if the GOP takes the WH in 2016.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:01 pm

this is as genteel a corner of the netroots, I’m willing to venture into,

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/2016/02/13/senior-u-s-supreme-court-associate-justice-antonin-scalia-found-dead-at-west-texas-ranch-san-antonio-express-news/

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:01 pm

Danger of recess appointment?

Tim b. (ce6e2f) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:02 pm

The limit of “too cute” would be appointing himself, which nothing in the Constitution directly prohibits, assuming he also resigns the presidency. For that matter, there’s nothing explicit in the Constitution which says that the President can’t simultaneously serve on the SCOTUS; but the people wouldn’t stand for that, it’d be more divisive even than FDR’s court-packing plan (which no later president has attempted, for good reason).

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:04 pm

If the Dems win the WH in November

Singularity.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:04 pm

Grassley ALSO says wait until January.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/judiciary-panel-chair-wait-on-court-until-after-election/

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:06 pm

Trump clear as ever…

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:07 pm

The other shoe:

A number of argued cases, such as the union dues case, will now wait for the next term

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:08 pm

You guys can’t imagine Biden saying with an absolutely straight face, “There was no quid pro quo, it’s just that Pres. Obama is the very best man for the job, which has suddenly come open, and he and I both recognized that. No one understands the difficulties our country is facing, and no one is better positioned than Barack Obama to bring the Supreme Court into the 21st Century so that it can live and breathe again.”

If “too cute” were a serious self-limitation on Barack Obama’s exercise of power, we wouldn’t be seeing Imperial President-by-Executive-Order Obama right now.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:08 pm

He truly was the keeper of the covenant. There hasn’t been worse news in… in who-can-say-how-many years.

Zero chance? The optimism is getting out of hand. But let’s at least hope.

Alan (fd4109) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:09 pm

The Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to block any and all nominations. It might possibly even be a politically astute move to do so. But to announce ahead of time that no nomination will be accepted is an own-goal; it might play well to the Republican base, but will turn off voters in November if the vacancy extends to the election. It is also an unprincipled move, and I would have expected better from Ted Cruz.

David Pittelli (b77425) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:15 pm

Ted nailed it

mg (31009b) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:16 pm

Obama politicized this before Scalia was room temperature.

JD (3c41bf) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:17 pm

John was giddy in his celebrations, as was his loyal echo chamber.

I’ve observed people of the right acting (or writing) with malicious delight when a liberal has died, but it generally has been limited to private locations or anonymous forums. But I’ve never seen such behavior emanating from conservatives as shamelessly and smugly in public the way people of the left treated, for example, the memorial for Minnesota’s Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone several years ago or, more recently, at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London.

Mark (f713e4) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:18 pm

obama could not let it rest for one day. Pathetic human.

mg, I’m not going to dignify it with a link, but The Onion already has a nasty and snide article regarding Justice Scalia’s death. To the left, there is never a moment to cease with the vitriol.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:18 pm

they have to move fast before people start asking too many questions about who murdered him

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:21 pm

I think the only thing that would prevent O from getting nominated himself is the thought that it is too small of a job, and that he wants Sec. Gen. Of the UN.

Here’s a thought, though — Michelle had to subordinate her career as a racial-grievance lawyer making big bucks in the diversity racket when her husband won election to the Senate, and naturally her ability to hold outside jobs was limited while he was President. Don’t you think that she’s telling him that he owes it to her not to take another position where her job options would be limited? That’s why I think he will go on the lecture circuit and she will start stepping into the limelight. Besides, I still submit to you that Obama is too lazy for a job on the Supreme Court or even at the UN.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:22 pm

133 yes… He didn’t have time to dress appropriately, he was in such a rush.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:23 pm

Beldar,
I totally understand your point and you may well be right,
I hope I don’t understand Obama so well to predict exactly what he would do,
I’m just thinking that going around the world thinking everyone should do what you say would be very appealing to him,
Even if SCOTUS actually is of more significance.

MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:28 pm

Obama’s statement wasn’t too bad.

Biden’s statement, naturally, was hilarious:

Jill and I send our deepest condolences to Maureen and the entire Scalia family on the loss of their beloved husband, father, and grandfather. Justice Scalia and I had fundamental disagreements about how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but we shared a belief that sharp debates, tough questions, and deep respect for the adversarial process was an essential part of our judicial system and our democracy. . . .

Yes, they had fundamental disagreements, but only one of them knew what the hell he was talking about.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:36 pm

I thought this sounded quite reasonable:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/grassley-offers-no-prognostication-scalia-successor/80350458/

If “they” tried to pull the racism card with the nomination of O himself, it would be pretty easy to make the point that Republicans have nothing against AA judges, we nominated the first,
It’s what they believe that is the issue.

MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:58 pm

131. The Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to block any and all nominations. It might possibly even be a politically astute move to do so. But to announce ahead of time that no nomination will be accepted is an own-goal; it might play well to the Republican base, but will turn off voters in November if the vacancy extends to the election. It is also an unprincipled move, and I would have expected better from Ted Cruz.

David Pittelli (b77425) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:15 pm

You couldn’t be more wrong. In fact, announcing it ahead of time is the most principled move they could have made.

We all know that the Senate can block any of Obama’s nominees. And not only can they, they would. Obama knows it, too. Obama knows it, too. Nobody needed to say it out loud and in public.

So knowing that none of his nominees have a chance in hell of being approved by the Senate, Obama would have played all kinds of election year political games with his nominee. He would have selected the most left wing justices he could find, but he would have made sure his nominees were all women, minorities, or best of all women who are transgendered minorities. Knowing full well they’d reject his nominees anyway, but if the Senate were to go through the motions then he’d say they’re only rejecting them because Republicans hate women and minorities.

By announcing ahead of time that they are sticking with the nearly century old Senate precedent that any Supreme Court vacancy in an election year is filled by the next President, Obama could nominate a clone of Clarence Thomas and they can’t vote for him. If they’re standing on that principle, that is. Which they had better be, as Obama just might nominate a justice who is completely acceptable to the majority just to see if the Republicans are bluffing.

Also they need to point out to anyone who claims that they’re just playing politics that they don’t know who the next President will be. It could be Hillary! for all they know, or Sanders. So the Republicans in the Senate could be putting themselves in a position that’s a lot worse then what they might be in with Obama’s next nominee. I mean, Obama has what may be by now the worst 0 and 9 loss record in the Supreme Court of any President since WWII. The justices he himself has nominated sometimes can’t even hold their noses and decide some of the things he’s trying to do are constitutional.

Unless you think playing politics by putting on the usual kabuki theater is the more principled thing for the Senate Republicans to do.

Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/13/2016 @ 7:52 pm

Patterico,

You think Obama doesn’t pick his replacement. That is true if the republicans in the senate have the spine to stand up to him.

So… we are screwed.

I think it is time to dust off your old “we’re about to lose the constitution” essay. Because that day is potentially here.

Aaron "Worthing" Walker (43be7a) — 2/13/2016 @ 8:05 pm

108 Is there any non-troll here who things that the GOP should hold a vote for an Obama appointee? Speak up with your reasons?

Depends on the nominee. In the unlikely event the nominee is great why not confirm? Or if the nominee is really terrible why not hold a vote and make the Democrats take a position?

James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:11 pm

because we know from all of his lectures at chicago, in alinsky power relationship, masked as critical legal studies, his interviews on npr, most every press conference he gives, his statement re Alito’s nomination, which he subsequently considered filibustering, this is his wheelhouse,

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:15 pm

@ JVW (#136): I rarely comment on Mrs. Obama, but for this I’ll make an exception.

Mrs. Obama actually put her Harvard Law degree to good use at a well-respected law firm for a few years — that’s where she & Obama met, in fact (he was a summer clerk when she was an associate).

But she moved to a very cushy in-house job — IIRC, it was with the University of Chicago Hospital System or something like that — which likely didn’t involve the kind of hours and demands that Chicago BigLaw firms are famous for.

And I don’t think she wants another real job now. She can make speeches and be on corporate boards and fly on private jets without any of that.

Beldar (fa637a) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:26 pm

she so bad wants a talk show i think

where she can wear tight tops and look magnanimous

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:29 pm

Republicans are wimps.

AZ Bob (e02f2a) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:40 pm

And I don’t think she wants another real job now. She can make speeches and be on corporate boards and fly on private jets without any of that.

I’ll give her this: she has largely remained in the background as First Lady, unlike a certain First-Lady-turned-Senator-turned-Secretary-of-State-turned Presidential-candidate. But yeah, I think she would want a higher profile in Barack’s retirement, and I don’t know that it would look too good for her to be getting $200,000 to speak to the American Trial Lawyer’s Association or serving on the board of Apple while her husband was an associate justice of the Supreme Court or the Secretary General of the United Nations. If her husband takes a high-profile job then I think she is shunted back into the role of housemom and supportive partner. I would think she has more ambition than that.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:47 pm

she so bad wants a talk show i think

You know, happyfeet, that’s probably exactly the ticket: She can pull down a cool $5 million to be a hostess on some henfest like “The View” and work maybe 30 weeks a year doing a 90-minute morning taping five days a week then having the rest of the day to herself. That’s probably how it will shake out. And maybe, just maybe, her husband could serve on the Court on in the UN while she pulls down the big bucks in the cushy job.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:49 pm

i’m so not kidding i think the disneysluts already have her signed

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 9:51 pm

The GOP candidates/conservatives/right always gives lip service to loving and following the Constitution.

The Constitution specifies that it is the President’s right and duty to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. As far as I read, there is no exception “unless this is an election year” or “unless said President is in the final year of his term.”

As usual, the Republican opposition is obstructionism. And hypocritical to any adherence to the Constitution.

nosh (9d728b) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:04 pm

thanks for playing, you get a copy of the home game, and a year’s supply of rice aroni,

narciso (732bc0) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:07 pm

Obama politicized this before Scalia was room temperature.

JD (3c41bf) — 2/13/2016 @ 6:17 pm

Dick move by a dick president.

Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:08 pm

but only if he consents to receive the rice aroni

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:08 pm

Alinsky Rule Number 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Meantime, have Harry Reidf make up the rules for your side as he goes along. The Senate’s advise and consent power is unrestrained. It can refuse consent because the President is a lame duck Mau Mau out to destroy America, or because of no reason at all.

nk (dbc370) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:10 pm

“found dead”

yeah so was jfk

happyfeet (831175) — 2/13/2016 @ 10:26 pm

Indeed horrible news. He was a great man and a bulwark of the painfully thin line that stands between liberty and subjection.

Also, just terrible news, that means Obama gets to pick his replacement.

I’m not worried about that. The senate will not confirm anyone 0bama chooses. But that doesn’t solve the problem. For the next year his place will be vacant, and his vote for liberty will be missing. That means all the important cases this year are likely to be decided 4-4, which means the status quo ante will remain. 4 justices are enough to prevent new assaults on our liberty, but not to turn back existing ones. In any case where the current precedent favors the government, or where the circuit court has ruled for the government, the government will win.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/13/2016 @ 11:51 pm

I just saw that McConnnell said no nominee will get a vote this year. The Democrats are understandably outraged. I disagree with McConnell on this; it is indeed unfair for the presidents’ nominees not to get a hearing and a vote. If he nominates someone in plenty of time, and the hearings proceed at their usual pace, and the time comes to vote on the nomination, the senate should vote; and each Republican senator should vote against, not out of a spirit of obstructionism but because it’s their honest opinion that this person should not be on the Court. (Of course if 0bama nominates someone who should be on the court they should be confirmed! But we all know he’s not going to do that.)

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/13/2016 @ 11:54 pm

Slow walk any nomination, then defeat it. Repeat.

Exactly. Don’t obstruct.

Oh, and the Republicans will undoubtedly be accused of “filibustering”, and all our rhetoric from the Bush years against filibustering judicial nominees will be brought up. Remember that by definition it’s impossible for a majority to filibuster. A filibuster is literally an act of piracy, a minority holding up the majority. When the majority decides not to hold a vote, it’s not a filibuster, it’s the majority managing the agenda as is their right. Still, they should not obstruct; hold the vote and vote it down.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/13/2016 @ 11:58 pm

Beyond the brilliant jurisprudence, his legacy should be in his biting prose, best showcased in his dissents

Oh, yes. His dissents are a pure pleasure to read, even on those occasions when I disagree with them. (Which is usually in cases where he splits with Thomas.)

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:01 am

We must be sure to thank Harry Reid for his re-rigging of Senate rules to get the Judiciary he wanted. All Mitch need do is follow the Dhimmicrat Leader’s example.

Um, no. Reid made it easier for the majority to get a vote, for a nomination that it supports, over a minority seeking to block it. Here we have the opposite situation. A majority that doesn’t support a nomination has never needed re-rigged rules. It can either not hold a vote, or it can hold one and vote no.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:04 am

Oops, those italics ran away from me.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:04 am

Rather as one of my favorite Italics has run away from us all, and gone Home.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:05 am

Congress had 8 years to impeach BO and now it comes to this….

Do you seriously think if Biden were president it wouldn’t have come to exactly the same thing?!

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:17 am

Miguel Estrada was nominated on 9-May-2001. The first cloture vote wasn’t held until 6-Mar-2003, and he finally withdrew on 4-Sep-2003. And that was with a R majority.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:23 am

The Democrats want this, and what’s standing in their way? Mitch McConnel.

Not just McConnell. The Republican majority is or should be standing in their way. There’s no need for any fancy stalling tactics; just do the usual due diligence and then vote it down. Same for the next one. He probably wouldn’t have time for a third nomination, even if things progress at the usual pace.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:26 am

I expect that Obama will use this opportunity to make a completely disingenuous nomination, knowing that there is no chance it will be approved. Former AG Holder, for example.

Good. Let him. The more outrageous the better. It will provide grist for long and detailed hearings, at which the nominee’s unsuitability will be demonstrated at exhaustive length, and when it finally comes to a vote nobody will have to explain why it failed.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:29 am

I pray you’re right. I fear a recess appointment despite the fact that SCOTUS turned back Obama’s last attempt to abuse the appointment and confirmation process.

The senate will not go into recess. There’s not even an intersession split second that can be called a recess, because we’re in the last session. So when do you suppose he will make a recess appointment? If he claims to appoint someone in what he claims is a recess but is obviously not one, who cares? Let him do that if it amuses him, but what do you think it could possibly achieve?

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:33 am

“Senate votes 56-43 to confirm Lynch as attorney general”

The president was entitled to his choice of AG. This is different.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:33 am

0bama should nominate Ted Cruz

That would be wonderful. I wish he would. And I’ll bet all those senators who can’t stand him would vote for him just to get him out of the race. I’ve already said I think the Supreme Court is where Cruz really belongs. But of course 0bama won’t do that.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:39 am

As has been said, Trump can end this battle tonight by pledging that as president, he will appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court.

I wouldn’t trust him to keep that pledge. And even if he did, I still wouldn’t want him as president. Let Rubio nominate Cruz. Or let Jeb do it, or whoever. Let Cruz nominate himself. No Trump, not even for that.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:41 am

If Obama can get Loretta Lynch through the Senate, why do you think Biden couldn’t get Obama through the Senate?

Because Lynch was actually popular, and even the votes against her weren’t really against her but against 0bama. Every single R senator has railed against 0bama. There is no way any of them would even want to vote to put him on the Supreme Court, let alone justify such a vote to his/her colleagues and the public. Don’t forget that even the squishiest of Rs is an R for a reason. They could easily have been Ds, and often had an easier time of it. Don’t forget that every single R senator voted against 0bamacare.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:46 am

Is there any non-troll here who things that the GOP should hold a vote for an Obama appointee? Speak up with your reasons?

Raises hand. I’ve already given my reasons. They should hold a vote on the nominee. And on the next one. And in the unlikely event that there’s time for a third nominee to get through the process they should vote on that one too.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:49 am

Beldar, your hypothetical regarding Obama resigning and then being appointed by Biden to the Supreme Court is interesting. However, wouldn’t it appear to be TOO self-serving to the American people if he were to do that?

I don’t see why. In principle there would be absolutely nothing wrong with such a move. I would absolutely support a President Cruz doing that, or just nominating himself. So there’s no reason 0bama’s supporters should be at all upset at him doing it.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:52 am

Of course there’s also the consideration that even if you like 0bama’s political positions he’s not even remotely qualified. He’s never practised law, and has never shown any sign of understanding how to read a statute, let alone the constitution.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:53 am

The limit of “too cute” would be appointing himself, which nothing in the Constitution directly prohibits, assuming he also resigns the presidency.

There would be no reason for him to resign the presidency unless and until he was confirmed. If Cruz were president I would be 100% in favor of him doing exactly that. Nominate himself, and resign the presidency five minutes after he was confirmed.

For that matter, there’s nothing explicit in the Constitution which says that the President can’t simultaneously serve on the SCOTUS; but the people wouldn’t stand for that

Indeed it would be 100% constitutional. John Marshall was simultaneously Chief Justice and Secretary of State for a month. But people “not standing for it” is not the reason he wouldn’t do it. The reason is simply that it’s impossible to handle the workload of both jobs, and it would be insane to try.

For that matter, there was no constitutional reason why 0bama had to resign from the senate when he became president. The president is not “an officer under the United States”, so he’s not disqualified from sitting in the senate. But the modern presidency is already too much work for one person, and we can see how it wears out everyone who takes it on. Adding a senator’s workload on top of that would just be insane.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:01 am

But to announce ahead of time that no nomination will be accepted is an own-goal; it might play well to the Republican base, but will turn off voters in November if the vacancy extends to the election. It is also an unprincipled move, and I would have expected better from Ted Cruz.

Nonsense. There’s nothing unprincipled about voting against a nomination one considers unsuitable, and there’s no chance that 0bama will nominate anyone that the senate majority will consider suitable.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:06 am

poor dead scalia

he’s dead now

not unlike kurt cobain and lucille ball

poor dead court trash is dead

sadness ensues

happyfeet (831175) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:10 am

By announcing ahead of time that they are sticking with the nearly century old Senate precedent that any Supreme Court vacancy in an election year is filled by the next President, Obama could nominate a clone of Clarence Thomas and they can’t vote for him.

What precedent?

If they’re standing on that principle, that is. Which they had better be, as Obama just might nominate a justice who is completely acceptable to the majority just to see if the Republicans are bluffing.

If he does that they should absolutely vote to confirm! Bim, bam, done.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:11 am

The Constitution specifies that it is the President’s right and duty to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court,

Indeed it does. And it continues, as you so honestly point out,

with the advice and consent of the Senate.

If the senate doesn’t like whomever he appoints, it is free to withhold its consent.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:15 am

It can refuse consent because the President is a lame duck Mau Mau out to destroy America, or because of no reason at all.

Thankfully it won’t have to fall back on that. It is sure to have plenty of reason to refuse consent to anyone he is likely to nominate. And if it really has no reason to object to his nominee, why then let it consent!

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:17 am

poor dead court trash is dead

Shut up, feet. Just shut up.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/14/2016 @ 1:18 am

no he’s dead for reals

probably is was mrs. peacock with the candlestick in the study

the banality of it all just kills me

happyfeet (831175) — 2/14/2016 @ 2:18 am

83. That would work. Cruz would be an excellent supreme court justice as it was his backyard training.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:26 am

One thing we know for sure…. it wont be a white male that BO nominates.

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:28 am

Sorry cupcakes but your rationale for President Cruz died with Scalia and with the Turk/Saud offensive against the Kurds outside Aleppo.

One of you could help tho by running down Roberts in your SUV.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:34 am

The question is what would Scalia say about filling his position?

crazy (cde091) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:38 am

Latest SC poll has you know who up by 19. Time for the two or three of you actually interested in winning a freaking election(member McCain, member Romney?) to get your minds right.

Your GenXers taking the reins in Congress are traitorous scum and will only heap ignominy on your sorry azzes unless you win.

WTFU.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:40 am

Blaming the electorate for being stupid didn’t work the last time, the time b4 that, etc.

Let the RNC pick their poison once again and the loss is on you sh!theads.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 6:47 am

The coroner probably hasn’t even yet made a report on Justice Scalia, yet here we have Trump supporter DNF making cracks about running over Justice Roberts with an SUV. And we have Trump supporter “Now I’m Serious” repeating every left wing anti-Israel talking point about the Liberty.
Hopefully, once the supervising nurse returns from her breakfast hour, she’ll dispense their meds to them.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:02 am

190. Johnny-come-lately has no clue, I as anyone with standing can attest was among the very first Cruz supporters, certainly a die-hard b4 his election to the Senate.

What bothers me is tools like CS cannot conjure up another’s world view from ample tidbits but need every last position articulated. Utterly worthless ankle-biter to a team in accomplishing anything.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:15 am

The problem with obsessive devotion to principle is that realities suffer. Spouses are lost, families broken, elections lost, and in repetition of those errors, a way of life for one’s descendants.

Failure to adapt to the changing conditions by sticking to your precious principles isn’t courageous, its sub-human.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:38 am

DNF, it’s so shocking that you’re supporting a candidate who always tells other candidates that they’re worthless losers.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:39 am

193. Touche. I am supporting winning.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:43 am

Then there’s this:

August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz409qs4CcH
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:51 am

The SC debate previewed coming weeks until the contests come in a rush–Cruz vs. Rubio for second place.

All Roobs needs to do is come in a respectable third to have a place on the first ballot at convention.

Neither Trump nor Cruz will pass muster with the GOPe.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 7:56 am

http://politibrew.com/politics/4154-ted-cruz-on-nbc-s-meet-the-press-after-the-cbs-gopdebate

JRT for CRUZ (bc7456) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:02 am

The disingenuous nominee will be a WOMAN!

Then the opposition to her by Republicans will be spun by the media to the advantage of Hillary.

Obama’s moves are always political and justified by the media.

AZ Bob (e02f2a) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:07 am

Republican opposition to a lunatic, left-wing female nominee to the USSC will be cited as further proof of Republicans being mean and nasty.

AZ Bob (e02f2a) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:12 am

End times, baby!

AZ Bob (e02f2a) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:12 am

Hillary will win if she can get by Bernie.

AZ Bob (e02f2a) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:16 am

So the Turks are shelling our allies(not CIA backed mercenaries) the Kurds who have the authority to call for US sorties from Incirlik in support where Saudi aircraft have arrived to support at least keeping the road from Aleppo to Turkey under Turkish control.

Total chaos.

DNF (755a85) — 2/14/2016 @ 8:27 am

Miguel Estrada was nominated on 9-May-2001. The first cloture vote wasn’t held until 6-Mar-2003, and he finally withdrew on 4-Sep-2003. And that was with a R majority.

If memory serves, Congress and the Administration got kind of distracted starting in September 2001.

Also recall, Milhouse, that Jim Jeffords left the GOP in May 2001 which switched the majority rule over to Democrats until the aftermath of the 2002 elections. So the Estrada nomination was in fact taken up right after the new GOP-majority convened.

JVW (9e3c77) — 2/14/2016 @ 9:23 am

Apparently the Senate is currently in an 11-day recess. This may well allow a recess appointment.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/14/2016 @ 10:05 am

Yep, just saw that, Kevin… unintended consequences of not thinking things thru.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/14/2016 @ 10:10 am

If memory serves, Congress and the Administration got kind of distracted starting in September 2001.

What, and two years later they woke up and said “HEY, look what we forgot about?”

And if the majority matters and not getting a vote when the opposition controls the Senate is understandable, well, I give you 2016.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/14/2016 @ 10:16 am

Of course he will nominate someone, if only to give another issue to the Democrat nominee. “Look at these racist/homophobe Republican candidates!”

I don’t know why Patrick is so sure the Senate will block it. I think it will be another “didn’t want to shut government down” excuse by the GOP, with proper objections voiced by the powerless conservative members.

Patricia (5fc097) — 2/14/2016 @ 11:54 am

Amen.

crazy (cde091) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:00 pm

Patricia,
When the federal government is shut down, lots of Americans feel real consequences. But what consequences does the average American feel when the Supreme Court carries on with 8 jurists rather than 9?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:13 pm

Patricia, how will the government shut down over this? Of course they’re going to block it. All they have to do is hold the normal hearings on whomever 0bama nominates, expose her as the horror she’s sure to be, and then vote against her. Repeat with the next one, and the third one if there’s time for one. There definitely won’t be time for a fourth.

Milhouse (a93111) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:21 pm

Yes, there’s a recess now, but even 0bama couldn’t get away with making a recess appointment without even going through the process of making a nomination and having it run into difficulties. That would be such an insult to the senate that some D senators might take offense, and be willing to support drastic measures such as removing the appointed judge.

Milhouse (a93111) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:23 pm

I meant that as a type of excuse, Milhouse. You have such faith in the GOP! I pray you are right in that.

Cruz Supporter, I don’t understand the question. I don’t think the public will even notice that one justice is gone for now. But will that affect the Senate’s considerations? Is that what you are asking?

Patricia (5fc097) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:25 pm

Patricia, the GOP Senate gets freaked out about a federal government shut-down because agencies being closed has real impact upon real Americans. So that’s why they bend over backwards to avoid a shut-down.
But the average American doesn’t pay attention to the Supreme Court, and they don’t know what they do, and anyhow, most Americans are sitting on the couch watching sports and eating cheeseburgers…they don’t even know who the justices are. The Supreme Court can actually carry on with 8 justices. There’s no shut-down. And so there’s no “movement” by the American people to DEMAND! that a ninth justice be confirmed.
I believe the GOP Senate will hold the line.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/14/2016 @ 12:43 pm

I hope you’re right Patterico, but I hear there’s a period of 14 days or so next Janurary when the senate will be retired, but the president won’t! It doesn’t sound like there’s anything we can do about it in that case.

Bruce (fef048) — 2/14/2016 @ 2:31 pm

FOX NEWS announced there will be no autopsy for Justice Scalia. If there was nothing to hide – it wouldn’t be necessary to conceal the circumstances of Scalia’s passing. Initially, the cause was reported as a heart attack, now the cause is listed as natural causes without specifying what natural cause killed him.

This stinks to high heaven. The lack of an autopsy by itself isn’t conclusive, but in these circumstances it’s unsettling. Without one, speculation will smolder, flash and flare up periodically for years to come. There are any number of good and substantial reasons for a competent autopsy, and no persuasive argument for forgoing an autopsy.

ropelight (0bdb18) — 2/14/2016 @ 4:46 pm

213. “the GOP Senate gets freaked out about a federal government shut-down because agencies being closed has real impact upon real Americans. So that’s why they bend over backwards to avoid a shut-down.”

Unalloyed nonsense. In just the past few weeks it was learned that the Treasury had even gamed the shutdown in advance and had a system of triage in place to pay debt in order of necessity.

The Federal budget of $3.5 Trillion on shutdown has but $1.5 Trillion in debts subject to this regime.

Moreover, the Treasury continues on its merry way rolling over notes that come to maturity during the shutdown.

That know-nothings repeat the GOPe lies is just more testimony attesting to its pernicious influence.

DNF (755a85) — 2/15/2016 @ 4:23 am

More evidence that the grassroots are pizzing into the wind:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/cbs-poll-trump-poised-for-landslide-south-carolina-win/

‘Landslide’ here means 42%. Unless someone garners 60.8% nationally they are at the mercy of convention machinations.

DNF (755a85) — 2/15/2016 @ 4:30 am

Here’s your ‘real impact on real Americans’.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-14/why-yellens-testimony-screamed-danger

Courtesy of unelected bureaucrats trying just anything. My checking account earns 1% invested by the bank in money markets. Going after that cash via NIRP so as force me to put the money in some asset is insane. Bank-to-bank lending is just one transaction requiring liquid MM funding.

DNF (755a85) — 2/15/2016 @ 4:41 am

216 DNF,

Get in the game. Politics is all about optics, and usually seen through the prism of the average voter, whom sadly is rather low-information. And it’s also filtered by the left wing media.
The Democrat party is always going to win the optics regarding the government shutdown fight simply because they’re in favor of EXPANDING the federal government whereas the GOP is always going to lose the optics of a government shutdown fight because they’re for REDUCING the size of the federal government. All the Democrats have to do is stand in front of a TV camera and say, “Hey Americans, remember when President Cruz was campaigning and promised to eliminate this agency and that federal department?! Well, he’s the one who closed it down due to this budget stalemate—not us. We proposed to expand those departments in the budget!”

Also, MR. DNF, you may recall when Barack shut down the national parks and even the veterans’ memorial in Washington DC. That was for maximum impact. As head of the executive branch, he gets to make those calls. Elections have consequences. And those shut-downs had real impact on the lives of real Americans. You can stand there and tilt at windmills all you want. But optics are optics.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/15/2016 @ 7:11 am

219. Ah, now its optics, the Thugs get pistol-whipped by the MSM so lets not fight and say we did.

You are flailing.

DNF (755a85) — 2/15/2016 @ 7:53 pm

I hear there’s a period of 14 days or so next Janurary when the senate will be retired, but the president won’t

This senate will have expired. The next senate will be in session.

Milhouse (87c499) — 2/16/2016 @ 11:07 pm

2/13/2016

Justice Scalia Dies

227 Responses to “Justice Scalia Dies”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out