snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 16 February 2016, 02:39 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
[condescendingly] I think you mean "disperse with" [j/k]
Letís dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesnít know what heís doing. He knows exactly what heís doing.

Better?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 16 February 2016, 02:41 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,479
Default

I thought Rubio said 'disperse' I/O 'dispel.' Never mind.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 16 February 2016, 02:56 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,269
Default

He may have in other speeches, the word parser that the engineers installed in Marco Rubot is really quite sophisticated.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 16 February 2016, 07:15 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,910
Default

The process of replacing Scalia could get interesting.

Scenario 1: Republicans, who control the senate, refuse to approve a center-of-the-road judge Obama brings forward.
* The backlash makes the Republicans loose a couple of key swing senate elections this year giving the Democrat's control of the senate.
* Republicans get the presidency but can't get a nominee approved because of the Democrat control of the senate.

Scenario 2: Republicans refuse to approve a center-of-the-road judge Obama brings forward.
* The backlash makes the Republicans loose a couple of key swing senate elections this year giving the Democrat's control of the senate.
* Democrat's get the presidency and with control of the senate they can get the most liberal judge they can find approved and the Republican's can't do squat.

Scenario 3: Republicans refuse to approve a center-of-the-road judge Obama brings forward.
* Republicans survive the backlash and keep control of the senate.
* Dem's get the white house.
* Repub's are back where they were with Obama.

Scenario 4: Republicans refuse to approve a center-of-the-road judge Obama brings forward.
* Republicans survive the backlash and keep control of the senate.
* Repub's get the white house.
* Repub's can pick the most right-wing judge they can find for the Scalia's spot. :{

Scenario 5: Obama brings forward a centrist candidate (who is well left of Scalia) and the Repub's bitch and moan mightily but then approve the judge.

Looks to me like only one scenario is good for the republicans, the other four are good for the dem's.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16 February 2016, 07:25 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,194
Default

Scenario 1 won't happen in those terms. Maybe Republicans wouldn't be able to get a very conservative nominee through, but Democrats would not block any and all nominations.

That's part of why this current vacancy is controversial. Blocking a nomination for almost a year would be unprecedented. It would be very unlikely for there to be a long delay after the election, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 16 February 2016, 07:40 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,519
Default

jimmy101_again, several of your scenarios assume that the Democrats would behave as the Republicans have recently, i.e. in lockstep.

They don't, usually. A Democratic senate would not necessarily approve an extremely liberal judge; nor would a narrow Democratic majority necessarily preclude a Republican president's pick getting through.

However, I hope enough of the Republicans think the same way you just did that enough of them will break with the party to get an Obama nominee to the floor and approved.

-- For that matter, I hope that, at least if Obama picks somebody most of them have been praising up to this point, enough of them will vote to confirm just on the grounds that in that case that's what they ought to do. I know it's a thin hope these days; but such things did use to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 16 February 2016, 08:37 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,269
Default

The Democrats would have to gain 16 out of 24 seats and lose none of theirs in order to gain a filibuster proof majority, so scenario 2 would be unlikely as the Republicans can continue to filibuster any nomination they don't like*.

* I believe the 2013 rules that created the "nuclear option" of ending filibusters are still in effect. That rule does not extend to SCOTUS nominees.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 16 February 2016, 09:16 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Another reason we might want to have a full Supreme Court before next year is BECAUSE of the election this fall. What if we have a situation similar to the 2000 election where the court has to rule on who won a key swing state in the presidential election? If there are only 8 justices we could even conceivably end up with a 4-4 deadlock on who won some state.

Talk about a catch 22; leaving that 9th seat vacant so that the next president can be the one to fill it and than being deadlocked on who will be the next president because you don't have a 9th Justice to break the tie.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 16 February 2016, 10:36 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,194
Default

But the decision would not be deadlocked. The ruling of the lower court would stand, because the Supreme Court had failed to take action to change it. So, if the lower court were a state Supreme Court, that court's decision would stand. If it were a US Circuit Court of Appeals decision, that decision would stand.

It could potentially be a big mess if there were simultaneous and conflicting decisions from state and federal courts though. I suspect that something would get worked out if at all possible in that case. (Like scrutinizing standing, or whether something g is a political question, or some other avoidance doctrine that could come into play.)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 16 February 2016, 11:03 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Scenario 1 won't happen in those terms. Maybe Republicans wouldn't be able to get a very conservative nominee through, but Democrats would not block any and all nominations.

That's part of why this current vacancy is controversial. Blocking a nomination for almost a year would be unprecedented. It would be very unlikely for there to be a long delay after the election, I think.
I'm not sure about your first point. If the republican senate blocked an Obama nominee through the end of of his presidency then how the dem's would respond if they should get control of the senate and a republican is elected president is an open question.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 16 February 2016, 11:08 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,269
Default

The Democrats would have to block an appointment for at least 4 years. That long of a delay would be completely out of character for them.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 16 February 2016, 11:11 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
The Democrats would have to block an appointment for at least 4 years. That long of a delay would be completely out of character for them.
You are probably right, though if they blocked an appointee for a year or two the 8 member court is going to behave a lot different than the 9 member court with Scalia.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 17 February 2016, 02:20 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,194
Default

I suppose that a potential Trump or Cruz presidency could make the Democrats resort to desperate measures that are completely out of character and unprecedented, but I don't think you can call it an " open question" either. That something hasn't been definitively decided in advance doesn't make all possible outcomes equally likely.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rock Band Sings Justice Scalia's Dissents Cure the Blues Fun House 0 03 July 2015 05:10 PM
Scalia Once Pushed Death Penalty For Now-Exonerated Inmate Henry Lee McCollum Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Police Blotter 6 12 September 2014 01:58 AM
Scalia says Satan is 'a real person' Psihala Soapbox Derby 111 09 October 2013 04:25 AM
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains in Movie E. Q. Taft Fun House 9 27 June 2013 01:49 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.