Mors Venit
Footballguy
Can someone brief me on this dudes track record?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Justice Scalia Dead (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jobber
- Start date
NCCommish
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/14/ap-fact-check-gop-contenders-on-supreme-court-nominees-syria.html
TED CRUZ: "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year."
MARCO RUBIO: "It has been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."
THE FACTS: Cruz is wrong. Rubio is in the ballpark.
Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 3, 1988, in the final year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, by a 97-0 vote. That was a presidential election year.
Presidents don't appoint justices to the high court; they nominate them for Senate confirmation. Kennedy was nominated in in 1987 and confirmed the next year. That makes Rubio closer to correct.
Rubio and other Republicans argued that President Barack Obama, as a lame duck, should not fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but leave it to the next president — which they hope will be one of them.
But the example of Kennedy, who is still on the court, shows that presidents in their last year aren't always powerless in shaping the court — and not shy about trying.
Wow! So Rubio is telling the truth because Reagan didn't "appoint" Kennedy? That's ridiculous. It's obvious what Rubio meant.
TED CRUZ: "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year."
MARCO RUBIO: "It has been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."
THE FACTS: Cruz is wrong. Rubio is in the ballpark.
Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 3, 1988, in the final year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, by a 97-0 vote. That was a presidential election year.
Presidents don't appoint justices to the high court; they nominate them for Senate confirmation. Kennedy was nominated in in 1987 and confirmed the next year. That makes Rubio closer to correct.
Rubio and other Republicans argued that President Barack Obama, as a lame duck, should not fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but leave it to the next president — which they hope will be one of them.
But the example of Kennedy, who is still on the court, shows that presidents in their last year aren't always powerless in shaping the court — and not shy about trying.
Wow! So Rubio is telling the truth because Reagan didn't "appoint" Kennedy? That's ridiculous. It's obvious what Rubio meant.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
Higgs
Footballguy
There's a lot of confusion on this. I think it's important to distinguish the nomination date from the appointment date, and what we consider lame duck years. Reagan nominated Kennedy in November of 87 but he wasn't appointed until 88. I'm trying to find out the last nomination during an election year that was also appointed.
jamny
Footballguy
Higgs
Footballguy
And who changes the Constitution? The Supreme Court or the Legislative Branch?
Not because he didn't appoint Kennedy. Because he didn't nominate Kennedy in an election year.
In any case, 80 years doesn't seem very long. I haven't done the calculation, but if you look at the average number of Supreme Court confirmations per year, and then look at the number of second-termers-in-their-last-year over the last century ... I don't think they'd be expected to intersect all that often.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
No, not even close. There's a justice currently sitting on the court (Kennedy) who was nominated by a lame duck president. Oh, and presidents don't appoint SCOTUS justices. Rubio is simply in over his head, as usual.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
"I think we found Scalia’s tell,” said Stewart. “The crankiness of Scalia’s insults runs inverse to his intellectual consistency.”
Scalia, Stewart noted, “had no problem telling people to #### off” in the Citizens United case that essentially ruined democracy irreversibly by allowing insane amounts of money into the political process.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
LMAO @ the respectful Scalia thread getting locked. Nice try Rock, take it to another board.
The Scalia I Knew Will Be Greatly Missed
6 FEB 13, 2016
By Cass R. Sunstein
When Stephen Breyer, President Bill Clinton's second appointment to the Supreme Court, was sworn in as an associate justice at a White House ceremony in 1994, Justice Antonin Scalia came up to me, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a bright, mischievous smile, “First Ruth, and now Steve? Cass, it’s ALMOST enough to make me vote Democrat.”
Antonin Scalia was witty, warm, funny, and full of life. He was not only one of the most important justices in the nation’s history; he was also among the greatest. With Oliver Wendell Holmes and Robert Jackson, he counts as one of the court’s three best writers. Who else would say, in a complex case involving the meaning of a statute, that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes”?
But his greatness does not lie solely in his way with words. Nor does it have anything to do with conventional divisions between liberals and conservatives (or abortion, or same-sex marriage). Instead it lies in his abiding commitment to one ideal above any other: the rule of law.
Scalia gave this title to a vigorous essay in 1989, a kind of cri de coeur: “The Rule of Law As a Law of Rules.” His central claim is that the Supreme Court should attempt to constrain itself by setting out clear, binding rules rather than flexible standards. In his view, predictability is important, for “those subject to the law must have the means of knowing what it prescribes.”
Firm rules also have the advantage of inhibiting courts, reducing their discretion and the risk that they will indulge their own political views. When rules are in place, “I will be unable to indulge [my policy] preferences; I have committed myself to the governing principle.”
Equally important, firm rules can embolden courts as well. There’s always a risk that “frail men and women” will fail to “stand up to their unpleasant duty” of protecting unpopular causes, including the rights of criminal defendants. The chances that they will fulfill that duty “are greatly increased if they can stand behind the solid shield of a firm, clear principle enunciated in earlier cases.”
Much of Scalia’s work reflects his passionate commitment to the rule of law. In interpreting statutes, he was a “textualist,” in part because he thought that if judges followed the text, the legal system would become less unpredictable. He believed in adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution in large part because he sought to reduce the risk that judges would make up the law as they went along.
Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, he vigorously defended the controversial principle that administrative agencies, not courts, should be authorized to interpret ambiguous statutes (so long as their interpretations are reasonable). He insisted that this principle sets out a clear rule for everyone to see – and thus promotes predictability while also constraining the federal judiciary.
He was also a fierce defender of the “rule of lenity,” which means that where Congress has not spoken clearly, criminal defendants get the benefit of the doubt. Many liberals have been puzzled by Scalia’s willingness to embrace this principle. They shouldn’t be. For him, the rule of law comes first. People shouldn’t go to jail unless Congress has given them fair notice.
Volumes can and will be written about Scalia’s approach to the law. Even those of us who disagreed with him (as I often did, sometimes intensely) owe him an immense debt, because the clarity and power of his arguments forced us to do better.
But most of all, I mourn his loss as a person. During my first year at the University of Chicago Law School, where he was then a well-known professor, he treated me with immense kindness -- sending me his rough drafts for comments, asking me to write for Regulation (the magazine he edited) and encouraging my primitive academic efforts even as he disagreed with them.
When he left Chicago to join the court of appeals in Washington, he asked me to come to his office. He said, with a paternal air and considerable shyness, that he knew I would be teaching some of his courses, and I was the one he’d like to have his files -- filled with illuminating nuggets about the law, which he had accumulated over a period of many years. To a kid law professor, that was an act of extraordinary generosity, carried out quietly and with grace.
He was a great man, and a deeply good one.
6 FEB 13, 2016
By Cass R. Sunstein
When Stephen Breyer, President Bill Clinton's second appointment to the Supreme Court, was sworn in as an associate justice at a White House ceremony in 1994, Justice Antonin Scalia came up to me, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a bright, mischievous smile, “First Ruth, and now Steve? Cass, it’s ALMOST enough to make me vote Democrat.”
Antonin Scalia was witty, warm, funny, and full of life. He was not only one of the most important justices in the nation’s history; he was also among the greatest. With Oliver Wendell Holmes and Robert Jackson, he counts as one of the court’s three best writers. Who else would say, in a complex case involving the meaning of a statute, that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes”?
But his greatness does not lie solely in his way with words. Nor does it have anything to do with conventional divisions between liberals and conservatives (or abortion, or same-sex marriage). Instead it lies in his abiding commitment to one ideal above any other: the rule of law.
Scalia gave this title to a vigorous essay in 1989, a kind of cri de coeur: “The Rule of Law As a Law of Rules.” His central claim is that the Supreme Court should attempt to constrain itself by setting out clear, binding rules rather than flexible standards. In his view, predictability is important, for “those subject to the law must have the means of knowing what it prescribes.”
Firm rules also have the advantage of inhibiting courts, reducing their discretion and the risk that they will indulge their own political views. When rules are in place, “I will be unable to indulge [my policy] preferences; I have committed myself to the governing principle.”
Equally important, firm rules can embolden courts as well. There’s always a risk that “frail men and women” will fail to “stand up to their unpleasant duty” of protecting unpopular causes, including the rights of criminal defendants. The chances that they will fulfill that duty “are greatly increased if they can stand behind the solid shield of a firm, clear principle enunciated in earlier cases.”
Much of Scalia’s work reflects his passionate commitment to the rule of law. In interpreting statutes, he was a “textualist,” in part because he thought that if judges followed the text, the legal system would become less unpredictable. He believed in adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution in large part because he sought to reduce the risk that judges would make up the law as they went along.
Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, he vigorously defended the controversial principle that administrative agencies, not courts, should be authorized to interpret ambiguous statutes (so long as their interpretations are reasonable). He insisted that this principle sets out a clear rule for everyone to see – and thus promotes predictability while also constraining the federal judiciary.
He was also a fierce defender of the “rule of lenity,” which means that where Congress has not spoken clearly, criminal defendants get the benefit of the doubt. Many liberals have been puzzled by Scalia’s willingness to embrace this principle. They shouldn’t be. For him, the rule of law comes first. People shouldn’t go to jail unless Congress has given them fair notice.
Volumes can and will be written about Scalia’s approach to the law. Even those of us who disagreed with him (as I often did, sometimes intensely) owe him an immense debt, because the clarity and power of his arguments forced us to do better.
But most of all, I mourn his loss as a person. During my first year at the University of Chicago Law School, where he was then a well-known professor, he treated me with immense kindness -- sending me his rough drafts for comments, asking me to write for Regulation (the magazine he edited) and encouraging my primitive academic efforts even as he disagreed with them.
When he left Chicago to join the court of appeals in Washington, he asked me to come to his office. He said, with a paternal air and considerable shyness, that he knew I would be teaching some of his courses, and I was the one he’d like to have his files -- filled with illuminating nuggets about the law, which he had accumulated over a period of many years. To a kid law professor, that was an act of extraordinary generosity, carried out quietly and with grace.
He was a great man, and a deeply good one.
NutterButter
Footballguy
Rirruto
Footballguy
What's also important is that there were still 9 justices when Kennedy was nominated and confirmed. Now they're asking the Court to go a term and a half with 8. That pretty much means that they can't (or won't) take any important cases in October Term 2016. The last time they had 8 justices (Rehnquist) they did their best to kick the can down the road on 4-4 cases.
Higgs
Footballguy
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/
In my mind there's no chance the Republicans allow an Obama nomination to be appointed. It's going to wait until the next President, whoever it is. As SaintsinDome said, all the chips are in the middle of the table.
Capella
Footballguy
Rove!
Footballguy
interesting piece on Sri from 2013
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court
pinequick
Footballguy
For the record, Chuck Grassley--current Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--is a liar.
Judiciary chair: 'Standard practice' to not confirm SCOTUS nominee in election year
It is "standard practice" to not confirm nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Saturday, following news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As a result, he said the Senate shouldn't confirm President Obama's nominee to replace Scalia. “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year," Grassley said.
Thing is, Grassley is wrong... and he's cherry-picking the time frame for his reference. For starters, in the past 80 years there have been 5 announced vacancies on the Court in a presidential election year (or just before):
1. Benjamin Cardozo--replaced O.W. Holmes who retired on 1/12/1932. Cardozo was confirmed on 2/15/1932. CONFIRMED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
2. Frank Murphy--replaced P. Butler who died on 11/16/1939. Murphy was confirmed on 1/15/1940. CONFIRMED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
3. William Brennan--replaced S. Minton who announced his resignation on 9/7/1956. Brennan was confirmed on 3/19/1957
4. Abe Fortas--was nominated to replace Earl Warren who announced his retirement on 6/26/1968. Fortas's confirmation failed (more on that later).
5. Anthony Kennedy--was nominated to replace the failed nomination of Douglas Ginsburg on 11/30/1987. Kennedy was confirmed on 2/3/1988. CONFIRMED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
- Of the above, 1, 2, and 3 were all confirmed in presidential election years (3 of 5).As for the two that were not, #3 (Brennan) was not confirmed because he was a recess appointment of Eisenhower's. In the 1950s, Congress was not a very professionalized body and went out of session VERY early--in this case, the 84th Congress went out of session on July 27th. The high court vacancy was announced in September. Congress didn't meet again until 1957.
- #4 (Fortas) was not confirmed because of alleged malfeasance by the nominee. Fortas later resigned from the Court. This nomination did not fail because it was "common practice" to not confirm Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years.
6. Louis Brandeis--was nominated to replace J. Lamar who died on 1/2/1916. Brandeis was confirmed on 6/1/1916. CONFIRMED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
7. John Clarke--was nominated to replace C. Hughes who resigned on 6/10/1916. Clarke was confirmed on 7/15/1916. CONFIRMED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
So for the record, Chuck, in the past century 5 of the 7 nominations that occurred during (or just before) a presidential election year ended in confirmation. Of the two that did not, for one nomination Congress was already out of session, and for the other the nominee was accused of taking bribes and resigned.
ETA: Sorry--Cardozo is at 84 years. I was a Political Science major, not a math major. My bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
pinequick
Footballguy
Congress almost never goes in recess anymore. They usually have somebody come in and rap the gavel. They do this to avoid stuff like this (recess appointments).
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
"At his swearing-in ceremony, he took the oath on the Hindu holy book Bhagavad Gita."
He's a Muslim just like Obama!
timschochet
Footballguy
I guess the historical precedent really doesn't matter. The real question is: if the Republicans block Obama from nominating a justice, how will the public react? Will they side with Obama, or with the Republicans?
Higgs
Footballguy
I think what Grassley was saying was that they haven't confirmed nominees that were made during an election year. Regardless, that is this issue at hand. When was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy opened up during an election year in a divided government? When was the last time both a nomination and appointment occurred during an election year in a divided government? It's my understanding it hasn't happened since 1880.
jamny
Footballguy
Higgs
Footballguy
I agree. What do you think the public will think?
Rove!
Footballguy
I think most won't care....for those that do, it may depend on the nominee....if he nominates Sri Srinivasan, it will be hard for the Rs not to confirm, whereas people like Watford or Alison Nathan by be more contentious...
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm out of the predicting business. (I've been wrong too much!) But I'd very much like to hear what you and others think.
I will say that it probably depends on how liberal the candidate is (or is portrayed).
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
What will happen if there isn't an appointment/confirmation before Obama leaves office and a Democrat wins in November?
sho nuff
Footballguy
What will they think? Those that are already on the left will call it out.
Those on the right won't care and will claim its politics as usual.
Some people who claim they are tired of politics as usual (Trumpers)...will turn the other way.
And some will turn to the Democrats because of it.
Maybe small gains for the dems.
Should be bigger gains...but people are too dug in to really care.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
To me, the timing is irrelevant. The only argument that I could see would be if the November elections had taken place, then maybe, the President-to-be would get to pick the nomination but even that argument better be strong.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Higgs
Footballguy
I have to find out more about Sri. My nephew knows him very well, and in my brief conversation with him this evening he described Sri as slightly Liberal to Moderate. But my nephew is pretty Liberal, so I think if anything he might be inclined to understate Sri's Liberal tendencies.
One thing's for certain - whoever is nominated will undergo an extraordinary level of scrutiny. And if there are any Liberal leanings detected in any of the research the nominee won't be appointed, political fallout be damned.
One thing's for certain - whoever is nominated will undergo an extraordinary level of scrutiny. And if there are any Liberal leanings detected in any of the research the nominee won't be appointed, political fallout be damned.
pinequick
Footballguy
It is sort of misleading if someone is contending that "It hasn't happened since 1880" because it hasn't been POSSIBLE for that to happen in the past 100 years using criteria that specific (that the nomination and confirmation had to both occur in a presidential election year under the conditions of divided government). The phenomenon--a Court opening, an ensuing nomination, a confirmation vote, AND a coincident case of divided government--just hasn't occurred.
So it's not really the case that "we don't do that in the Senate." It's the case "we don't do that because it hasn't been possible to find out in the past 100 years (or more)."
Last edited by a moderator:
Rirruto
Footballguy
Republicans were roundly blamed for the shutdown in 2013. That's affected some of their handling of issues even now. The optics of this are actually better for Democrats. You never know how things will turn out when you're talking about public perception, but if Democrats can keep pounding on the Anthony Kennedy confirmation (in 1988 by a Democratic Senate when there were already 9 sitting justices anyway) and get Sri to agree to a nomination, they can win the political football game. There are some Republican Senate seats that are already vulnerable. I'm sure Pat Toomy is looking for someone to murder right now.
All that said, they still vote whoever he nominates down. If I'm Sri, I tell Obama to bugger off.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
I heard that those don't start over but rather his vote is dropped and it's a 4-4 decision. Perhaps the written opinions have to start over.Watching some coverage and they confirmed what was said about upcoming cases like the immigration one.. That it will go forward and if there is a 4-4 tie then it reverts to the lower court decision. . Aka Obama's executive order goes
But they also mentioned in regards to any decisions already made and just waiting the ruling to be released that if his vote would have broke a 4-4 tie then those cases need to start ovet..
-QG
pinequick
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Fortas for Chief Justice.
pinequick
Footballguy
If they do, I think that backfires on them. Gives more ammunition to the "Republicans are the party of obstructionism" crowd. They've been trying like heck to show that they can govern.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/gop-candidates-to-senate-don-1364649168953398.html
These answers are meme's waiting to happen. Talk about the Constitution this, and Constitution that, but when its time to follow the Constitution, what do each of these guys say? "Let's wait for the election to occur even though it is 9 months away."
For shame.
These answers are meme's waiting to happen. Talk about the Constitution this, and Constitution that, but when its time to follow the Constitution, what do each of these guys say? "Let's wait for the election to occur even though it is 9 months away."
For shame.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I'll take that bet. The Republicans do anything to stop the President from doing his job, the Republicans can say good-bye to the House, Senate, and Presidency in November.
Bush gave a good answer.
Rubio mentioned "ramming down our throats" again. (I think it was The Daily Show that put together a zillion clips of him using that phrase.)