US Supreme Court vacancy is tangible test for 2016 candidates

[webfact]

Supreme Court vacancy is tangible test for 2016 candidates
By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The presidential election just got real.

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — and the immediate declaration from Republicans that the next president should nominate his replacement — adds even more weight to the decision voters will make in November's general election.

For months, the candidates have espoused theoretical, sometimes vague, policy proposals. Now, the prospect of President Barack Obama's successor nominating a Supreme Court justice immediately after taking office offers a more tangible way for voters to evaluate the contenders.

Candidates in both parties moved quickly to reframe the election as a referendum on the high court's future.

"Two branches of government hang in the balance, not just the presidency, but the Supreme Court," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in the latest GOP debate, held in South Carolina just hours after word filtered out Saturday about Scalia's death in Texas. "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, every one of those hangs in the balance."

Democratic Hillary Clinton painted a similarly stark scenario.

"If any of us needed a reminder of just how important it is to take back the United States Senate and hold onto the White House, just look at the Supreme Court," Clinton said.

Clinton has said she would have "a bunch of litmus tests" for potential nominees, including a belief that the Citizens United ruling clearing the way for super political action committees and unlimited campaign contributions should be overturned. She also said the court's makeup is crucial to preserving abortion rights and the legality of gay marriage nationwide.

Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, has raised opposition to Citizens United as a requirement for any Supreme Court nominees.

Scalia, a hero of conservatives during his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court, was found dead Saturday at a resort ranch in Texas. The court now is divided between four liberal and four typically conservative justices, putting the ideological tilt up for grabs.

Obama pledged to nominate a replacement in "due time," even after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that responsibility should fall to the winner of the 2016 election.

Obama could try to ram a nominee through the Senate this year, taking a high court vacancy off the next president's immediate to-do list. Even if that were to happen, a confirmation vote probably would be months away, leaving the Supreme Court in the center of the campaign during the nomination process.

With three other justices over the age of 75, the next president could have other vacancies during his or her tenure, even if Obama fills Scalia's seat.

It's unclear how the new focus on the Supreme Court might affect voters' decisions in an election that has seen surprising and unconventional candidates such as Donald Trump and Sanders challenge their parties' establishments.

Previous political thunderbolts that were supposed to push voters toward more traditional candidates, such as last fall's terrorist attacks in Paris and California, passed without any negative impact on Trump and Sanders. In fact, Sanders has strengthened since then, with the economic-focused Vermont senator handily defeating Clinton in the New Hampshire primary and finishing a close second in the Iowa caucuses.

Trying to counter Sanders' momentum, Clinton has urged voters to consider which candidate is most electable in November. With the balance of the Supreme Court now potentially on the line, Clinton and her allies are certain to increase their warnings about the risk of sending a self-declared democratic socialist to face a Republican in the fall.

"For any Democrat thinking about casting a protest vote for Sen. Sanders, this should serve as a wake-up call for what's exactly at stake," said Jim Manley, a former aide to top Democratic senators.

Among Republicans, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are casting themselves as candidates who could appeal to swing voters in the general election and put the GOP in position to guide the next court nominations. But that could open them up to questions from Republican primary voters about the ideological purity of their judicial choices.

Cruz is using the potential vacancy to build on his long-standing argument that Republicans should select a nominee with the most conservative credentials. An uncompromising conservative since arriving in the Senate, Cruz vowed to put "principled constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court. He contends Trump could not be trusted to do the same.

"Donald Trump is president, he will appoint liberals," said Cruz, noting the billionaire's past support for Democratic politicians.

Trump was alone among the candidates is naming specific justices he would consider nominating. He singled out Diane Sykes and William Pryor, federal judges appointed by former President George W. Bush.

During Saturday's debate, Kasich bemoaned that Washington and presidential candidates had "run so fast into politics" following Scalia's death.

But if anything, the speed at which politics did take over portends a furious fight to come over which candidate gets to put his or her imprint on the court.
___

Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-15

[aTomsLife]

Cruz: "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, every one of those hangs in the balance."

Demagoguery at its finest from Cruz, when what he really means is evangelicals should worry about actually having to abide by the rule of separation of church and state.

"If any of us needed a reminder of just how important it is to take back the United States Senate and hold onto the White House, just look at the Supreme Court," Clinton said.

Some words stringed together without actually saying anything. Typical Clinton soundbite.

"Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, has raised opposition to Citizens United as a requirement for any Supreme Court nominees."

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

Edited February 15, 2016 by aTomsLife

[Tatsujin]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

[lannarebirth]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

The Senate is in recess and does not reconvene until Feb. 22nd. Recess appointments are seen as provocative.

[CaptHaddock]

Although I like Sanders very much and agree that Citizens United is poison for democracy in the US, his remark is merely playing to the crowd since he is certainly aware that no nominee will announce his or her position on any issue during the nomination hearings. That's been the standard approach for many years. There might be some nominees who would give private assurances.

[MZurf]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

"Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor..."

Well, we all know the reason to that question.

[CaptHaddock]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

The Senate is in recess and does not reconvene until Feb. 22nd. Recess appointments are seen as provocative.

The Repubs see Obama as not legitimate even though he trounced them twice in elections. The Repub House recently refused to allow Obama's Budget Director to present his budget proposal, a ratcheting up of their obstructionism.

“Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia – the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget – are opting not to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2017 budget, saying inviting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shaun Donovan would not be a productive use of their time.”

The Republicans view any fulfillment of his duties by Obama as provocative. That said, it is unlikely that Obama will use his power to make an interim appointment for the SC, a move which McConnell could easily block.

[lannarebirth]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

The Senate is in recess and does not reconvene until Feb. 22nd. Recess appointments are seen as provocative.

The Repubs see Obama as not legitimate even though he trounced them twice in elections. The Repub House recently refused to allow Obama's Budget Director to present his budget proposal, a ratcheting up of their obstructionism.

“Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia – the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget – are opting not to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2017 budget, saying inviting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shaun Donovan would not be a productive use of their time.”

The Republicans view any fulfillment of his duties by Obama as provocative. That said, it is unlikely that Obama will use his power to make an interim appointment for the SC, a move which McConnell could easily block.

I'm just tellin' ya what I heard.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-will-nominate-scalias-replacement-when-senate-is-back-in-session-2016-2

[Ulysses G.]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

[CaptHaddock]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

The Senate is in recess and does not reconvene until Feb. 22nd. Recess appointments are seen as provocative.

The Repubs see Obama as not legitimate even though he trounced them twice in elections. The Repub House recently refused to allow Obama's Budget Director to present his budget proposal, a ratcheting up of their obstructionism.

“Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia – the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget – are opting not to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2017 budget, saying inviting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shaun Donovan would not be a productive use of their time.”

The Republicans view any fulfillment of his duties by Obama as provocative. That said, it is unlikely that Obama will use his power to make an interim appointment for the SC, a move which McConnell could easily block.

I'm just tellin' ya what I heard.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-will-nominate-scalias-replacement-when-senate-is-back-in-session-2016-2

If he were to make an interim appointment it wouldn't be now before the Senate has considered his appointee. He will submit a highly-qualified, moderate candidate (Obama is not very left.) If the Repubs refuse even to hold hearings on his nominee before the summer recess, that is when he could reasonably make an interim appointment. But I doubt he would do it even then, since the Dems will profit by calling out the Repubs as obstructionist.

Most voters are not much focused on the Court, but if Sander's young supporters probably are more than the average, and Hillary, if she's the nominee, might be able to get them out to vote on the issue of control of the Court. Turnout will be the big factor for the Dems, as it is in every presidential year.

[Pinot]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

It's not a valid concern of the American people, it's a valid concern of the minority right wing Republican party. The lovely world the right wing justices of the Supreme Court created for them is about to end.

Their Supreme Court majority just died and the Republican party is going to do everything they can to delay the appointment that will swing the Supreme Court from wingnut to democratic. Throw out Citizens United, re-establish a woman's right to choose, allow all Americans to vote and allow the environmental laws that could save the planet to take effect.

You can see why the Republicans will do everything they can to stop this. The other side of this will be that delay will highlight just how important the election of a Democrat is. Americans will now know who these crazy Republican candidates would appoint if by some miracle they get to be President.

Republicans are screwed. It may take a year but the avalanche of public opinion is going to change America once and for all and Republicans can't stop it.

Elizabeth Warren said it best, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Turn out the lights Republicans. The party is over.

[chuckd]

It's not a valid concern of the American people, it's a valid concern of the minority right wing Republican party. The lovely world the right wing justices of the Supreme Court created for them is about to end.

Their Supreme Court majority just died and the Republican party is going to do everything they can to delay the appointment that will swing the Supreme Court from wingnut to democratic. Throw out Citizens United, re-establish a woman's right to choose, allow all Americans to vote and allow the environmental laws that could save the planet to take effect.

You can see why the Republicans will do everything they can to stop this. The other side of this will be that delay will highlight just how important the election of a Democrat is. Americans will now know who these crazy Republican candidates would appoint if by some miracle they get to be President.

Republicans are screwed. It may take a year but the avalanche of public opinion is going to change America once and for all and Republicans can't stop it.

Elizabeth Warren said it best, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Turn out the lights Republicans. The party is over.

I normally don't quote such silliness as this but will make an exception this time.

Since there are now three threads going on this, the following article would seem to apply to all three.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

[notmyself]

[Throatwobbler]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

Says one of the most partisan people on here.

[CaptHaddock]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

Says one of the most partisan people on here.

There is nothing wrong with being partisan. The American system is based on partisan politics. The problem is when you distort the facts, i.e. lie, to support your financial interests, which is the Republican modus operandi. For instance, all of the Republican would repeal Obamacare which has achieved its goals of covering the uninsured. So, none of the Republican leadership has offered any alternative for the millions whose insurance they would take away. Just, go die, I guess. But the medical industry and doctors would be free of constraints.

[keemapoot]

It seems Obama is holding all the cards here. The GOP will oppose any nomination, no matter how moderate, and Obama can let the political fallout from that damage the GOP in the general election. I'm not sure if the following analysis is correct I read in the comments to a Christian Science Monitor article, but if so, Repubs are toast:

It's really pretty simple,Obama is the President and the president nominates a justice. That justice can be seated by a senate confirmation or by a recess appointment. The senate can choose to stay in session all year (roll call of 51 senators for a quarum and at least one vote held every three days) or they can do their normal recess schedule allow the members to campaign and get on with the countries business. No matter which way they choose to do it,Obama is going to select the next supreme court justice. The only real question is will the republican majority senate deliberate on nominees in good faith and confirm a moderate that Obama nominates or will they play games. If they play games I do not want to hear the crying when Obama does a recess appointment in his last two weeks,and no one should be the least bit surprised if he appoint the most liberal justice he can find if the senate plays games all year.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-delaying-scalia-hearings-might-little-difference-193932478.html

[mikebike]

Although I like Sanders very much and agree that Citizens United is poison for democracy in the US, his remark is merely playing to the crowd since he is certainly aware that no nominee will announce his or her position on any issue during the nomination hearings. That's been the standard approach for many years. There might be some nominees who would give private assurances.

Maybe he was coyly referring to the Dems best choice, Scalia's former clerk, Harvard Law professor, and former director of the Safra centre for Ethics at Harvard; Larry Lessig... His views on CU, money in politics, and other issues are well known.

[Acharn]

Why do they/should they have to wait so long to choose a successor, surely (with respect) the position is vacant now, and can and should be filled now. There will already be lists of potential candidates ready to take over, pre-screened.

Your question is a joke, right? The Republicans have single-mindedly been following the same strategy since December, 2008 -- do not allow Barack Obama to succeed at anything. Even if he proposes a Republican policy, oppose him. Delay, delay, filibuster, delay. Any proposal they win at will make the Democrats look good. Oppose, delay, deny. In this case they want to be able to name the nominee so they can be certain he will be as far a possible to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts. They have beavered away gaining there reliable majority on the Supreme Court for forty years, they do not want that endangered by letting a Democratic president appoint a moderate justice, much less a liberal one (as if center-right Obama would ever nominate a leftist).

[sgtsabai]

Whether or not Schummer called for a block of Bush's nominee isn't really relevant today. It never happened and was never attempted. At any rate it would have been logical, as Cheny/Bush et al had ruined the US, not so today. And what a oh so reliable source of information, the daily(liar)caller, NOT! Never fear, Obama has yet to nominate a true "lefty" although at least one of his choices has shown some real understanding of the law and the Constitution. There are no liberals on the Supreme Court. 5 right wing fascist, federalist, corporate, koch (John Birch Society) traitor brothers, that make law according to their masters bidding and their own insanity. The "gang of 5". Good riddance to bad rubbish Scalia and GitMo for the other 4 traitors. The 4 non-traitors while not liberal are basically rational thinking human beings with an understanding of the law and what they are supposed to be doing. BTW, being a liberal is a good thing, means you have a heart, mind and soul (if one believes in a soul), unlike 99.9% of Republicans. Justice Douglas has been turning over in his grave so much it is probably like a fracking earthquake. "As darkness does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there's twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." Justice William O. Douglas

[Chicog]

Some Republicans would put Cliven Bundy on there if they could.

They are no longer the party of Conservatism, but Obstructionism.

By selecting an ideal candidate such as Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed unanimously last time, Obama can stick the GOP on the spot.

Because if they essentially say "No-one is playing unless it's with our ball", they are as childish and self-serving as that sounds.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Chicog

[chuckd]

If you are a conservative in your 20's, it means you have no heart.

If you are a liberal in your 30's, it means you have no brain.

[Usernames]

If you are a liberal in your 30's, it means you have no brain.

Or you are hoping for someone else to pay off your college loan.

[elgordo38]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

Says one of the most partisan people on here.

His death saved the teachers bacon as Scalia wanted to revisit the teachers union rights on union dues. The right always seems to find some egghead that wants to challenge a previous settlement. I do not understand the Supreme Court existence as they seem to settle one issue and then a few years later revisit it and over turn it. The Supreme court is not really impartial as there is a left and right bias to it and its decisions. That is why the governing party selects them not for their knowledge but for their fealty. Like every thing in the US your either right or left with me or against me.

[Ulysses G.]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

Says one of the most partisan people on here.

Utter nonsense. I'm an Independent who has only voted for a Republican twice in my life.

[notmyself]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vt9xV9ZI74

[notmyself]

[Throatwobbler]

Someone actually raising a valid concern on behalf of the American people.

All THREE men raised valid concerns of the American people. Your partisan spin does not change that.

Says one of the most partisan people on here.

Utter nonsense. I'm an Independent who has only voted for a Republican twice in my life.

Your post are full of hatred for anything that Obama and the Democrats do. You may claim that you are not partisan but that is not true. You and the GOP are dinosaurs heading towards extinction and no one will miss you.

[Ulysses G.]

That is because I VOTED FOR OBAMA his first election and was VERY disappointed in a very short time that he was not what he pretended to be. He may be the worst president of all time. The fact that the democratic establishment enable and reinforce all his lies and poor decisions has alienated me from them as well.

However, I am very capable of voting for a democrat that is a centrist. I would vote for Jim Webb over Ted Cruz anytime,

Edited February 16, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

 

It's not a valid concern of the American people, it's a valid concern of the minority right wing Republican party. The lovely world the right wing justices of the Supreme Court created for them is about to end.

Their Supreme Court majority just died and the Republican party is going to do everything they can to delay the appointment that will swing the Supreme Court from wingnut to democratic. Throw out Citizens United, re-establish a woman's right to choose, allow all Americans to vote and allow the environmental laws that could save the planet to take effect.

You can see why the Republicans will do everything they can to stop this. The other side of this will be that delay will highlight just how important the election of a Democrat is. Americans will now know who these crazy Republican candidates would appoint if by some miracle they get to be President.

Republicans are screwed. It may take a year but the avalanche of public opinion is going to change America once and for all and Republicans can't stop it.

Elizabeth Warren said it best, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Turn out the lights Republicans. The party is over.

I normally don't quote such silliness as this but will make an exception this time.

Since there are now three threads going on this, the following article would seem to apply to all three.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

So anyway here's Mitch Mc|Connell in 2005 and in 2013 when the shoe, as McConnell put it, wuz on "the other foot." It wuz when McConnell and the senate Republican majority wanted a quick vote on judicial nominees sent by then Prez GW Bush...

"McConnell, at the time the second-highest-ranking Republican in the chamber, described his partys plan in a speech on the Senate floor on May 19, 2005: 'The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senates traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any presidents judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor'.

"It is time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent," he added.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, remarks on Senate floor, May 19, 2005

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-among-flip-floppers-senates-nuclea/

http://global.bing.com/images/search?q=Pure+Bullshit+Meter&FORM=IDMHDL

And here is Sen McConnell in 2013 when then majority leader Harry Reid was initiating the "nuclear option" to establish presidential nominees to the judiciary (except SCOTUS) be approved by a simple majority vote of 51 instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster...

"Let me say we are not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer. If you think this is in the best interests of the Senate and the American people to make advise and consent, in effect, mean nothing, obviously you can break the rules to change the rules to achieve that. But some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot."

Sen. Mitch McConnell, remarks on the Senate floor, Nov. 21, 2013

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-among-flip-floppers-senates-nuclea/

McConnell the other day got a "Pants on Fire" from Politifact for this flip and flop up to the present advise and obstruct stunt on the current scotus vacancy. So once again McConnell is getting the shoe on the other foot up his backside while he stands there with the other foot in his mouth. Let there be light.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Publicus

[Cynical Sailor]

Here's me thinking the executive and the judiciary are meant to be separated. Silly me.

What next? The President appoints the next Catholic Cardinal?

Pu-lease!!!!