|
sadly he spoke 3 years ago during oral arguments to utter an inaudible joke to most
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Who the gently caress can Obama get through a Republican Senate though? They don't even have to filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
What rhymes with mitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Were there any pending Supreme Court cases that Scalia had been working on? Will his death affect the verdicts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Were there any pending Supreme Court cases that Scalia had been working on? Will his death affect the verdicts? I just heard on the news they were drafting opinions. Not sure what happens now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Were there any pending Supreme Court cases that Scalia had been working on? Will his death affect the verdicts? http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Were there any pending Supreme Court cases that Scalia had been working on? Will his death affect the verdicts? We had a similar case in Canada with a new SCC appointment. The case was the new justice would not vote on any case they weren't present for. I don't know if that's a requirement or merely traditionally the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Newfie posted:We had a similar case in Canada with a new SCC appointment. The case was the new justice would not vote on any case they weren't present for. I don't know if that's a requirement or merely traditionally the case. That's going to be a bit of a moot point. In the ideal world, if Obama were to nominate someone, it'd likely not be for a few months, and the Senate would debate it for a few months, so an approval would occur after the current term ends. Key words being "In the ideal world"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Apparently 125 days is the longest ever. Obama has 342 days left. The longest was 2 years and some change, when Grier replaced Baldwin in '46. 1846.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That's going to be a bit of a moot point. In the ideal world, if Obama were to nominate someone, it'd likely not be for a few months, and the Senate would debate it for a few months, so an approval would occur after the current term ends. 1 month between Steven's retirement and Kagan's appointment. Less than one month between Souter's retirement announcement and Sotomayor's nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:The longest was 2 years and some change, when Grier replaced Baldwin in '46. I think thats the longest vacancy. We were discussing longest from nomination to confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:1 month between Steven's retirement and Kagan's appointment. Less than one month between Souter's retirement announcement and Sotomayor's nomination. I'm going to bold a key term that doesn't apply in this case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Were there any pending Supreme Court cases that Scalia had been working on? Will his death affect the verdicts? It possibly results in Fisher being affirmed equally divided if they weren't going to DIG it for mootness. greatn posted:Who the gently caress can Obama get through a Republican Senate though? I'm surprised by Mitch's comments. Are they really going to block an appointment for 11 months? Two of the major republican contenders are sitting senators and I can't imagine it playing well to have them blocking an appointment for almost a year so that they get to make it. It's worse than that even, since justices typically do not vote on cases they weren't present for, so if it takes a couple months for a new president to get an appointment through, we're really talking about September 2017 before we get back to a nine member SCOTUS. Vertical Lime posted:Kennedy was nominated with about a month left in 1987 if that counts We don't confirm 97-0 anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Maybe Obama can cut a deal. For them, they get to see they made B-Rock the Islamic Shock resign the presidency. For him, SCOTUS. For Biden, a year as President. UNSTATED: The Biden Agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I'm going to bold a key term that doesn't apply in this case. They didn't go around telling the president they were going to retire ahead of time so he could do prep work on the nomination. A month is plenty of time to appoint someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you're reading that the wrong way. Adjourning a session of Congress (that he has called) does not mean he forces Congress in to recess so he can circumvent them for nominees. If that were the case then Congress vote on such matters would be pointless since a POTUS could just say "Congress you are now in recess and I appoint these people" whenever they felt like it. The SCOTUS would go against him on it too. Wonder who he'll want to nominate. There was a name tossed around during Kagan and Sotomayor's nominations. Edward Chen maybe? FAUXTON posted:What rhymes with mitch Lich?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:They didn't go around telling the president they were going to retire ahead of time so he could do prep work on the nomination. A month is plenty of time to appoint someone. They, uh, actually did in fact do that. Stevens announced in April he was stepping down after the term ended in June. Souter notified the White House in April of his intent to do the same.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html quote:By the time Justice Souter’s decision leaked on April 30, officials said, the White House had full dossiers on nearly all of the major candidates and within days Mr. Obama was given 10-page memorandums on each of them to study over the weekend. By the next week, Mr. Craig’s office gave him 60- to 70-page memorandums on each prospect. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
If Obama recess appoints his pick after they refuse to even talk about it how many votes do they need to remove them? Simple majority?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Republicans posted:If Obama recess appoints his pick after they refuse to even talk about it how many votes do they need to remove them? Simple majority? They can't, but they can only serve through the end of the term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They, uh, actually did in fact do that. Stevens announced in April he was stepping down after the term ended in June. Souter notified the White House in April of his intent to do the same. Yes. Souter announced he was stepping down on April 30th. Sotomayor was appointed on May 26th. Less than a month. Stevens announced he was stepping down on April 9th. Kagan was appointed on May 10th. One month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:They didn't go around telling the president they were going to retire ahead of time so he could do prep work on the nomination. A month is plenty of time to appoint someone. It's kind of silly to suggest (not that you were, but it's been implied several times in the thread) that any president doesn't have a short list at all times, much less a staffer who's keeping it up to date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Republicans posted:If Obama recess appoints his pick after they refuse to even talk about it how many votes do they need to remove them? Simple majority? Doubt Obama will be able to, won't they just use pro forma sessions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:They didn't go around telling the president they were going to retire ahead of time so he could do prep work on the nomination. A month is plenty of time to appoint someone. Not to mention, Obama has already appointed two people to the SCOTUS. He has his list of names and while there might be a few to add (or remove) from the last time he got to nominate someone it's not going to take him long to know who he wants to nominate and he sure as poo poo isn't going to listen to the GOP and let the SCOTUS sit at 8 people for a year. If he doesn't pick someone from his short list of names left over after Kagan and Sotomayor then maybe he'll need a month, otherwise he'll probably send them a name, or names, by March. Then we get to see if the GOP's really willing to stonewall all the way to November, and if the Dems are capable of capitalizing on it to bash the GOP repeatedly for the next 9 months. e: If we're generous we can add a month to this since I doubt Obama actually expected another vacancy, but my earlier point still stands. He has already gone through this process twice and whomever he nominates is likely to be someone he had vetted when he picked Sotomayor and Kagan. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
There is normally some sort of mourning period before public officials have these discussions, but Mitch is making these comments the same day that Scalia died. Got to love the fact that they aren't even pretending to take the high road anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Two of the major republican contenders are sitting senators and I can't imagine it playing well to have them blocking an appointment for almost a year so that they get to make it.   Welp, guess I shouldn't really be surprised by anything the GOP does at this point. This should be entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Would top candidates for the seat actually want to accept a nomination, given that they're almost certain to be voted down or indefinitely delayed? I feel like in the event of the Sandstorm(or Hillary equivelant) delivering a dem senate in the fall, they would not nominate someone who has already been voted down as a (futile) conciliatory act
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Yes. They knew about Souter weeks before the news was public. But I screwed up and though they nominated Kagan on the 20th. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
joe football posted:Would top candidates for the seat actually want to accept a nomination, given that they're almost certain to be voted down or indefinitely delayed? I feel like in the event of the Sandstorm(or Hillary equivelant) delivering a dem senate in the fall, they would not nominate someone who has already been voted down as a (futile) conciliatory act If you're the nominee and a Dem wins the election, you probably get confirmed in the lame duck. You don't have to give up your day job, so of course you do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Having Scalia die on the same day as a presidential primary debate is the best Birthday gift I could ask for.
Rexicon1 fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Having Scalia die on the same day as a presidential primary is the best Birthday gift I could ask for. You mean debate not primary right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MicheleBachmann/status/698642572575518720 new thread title please
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:https://twitter.com/MicheleBachmann/status/698642572575518720 If we're retitiling it from a Bachmann tweet, it's gotta be 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:https://twitter.com/MicheleBachmann/status/698642572575518720 In that she probably couldn't understand the language in either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:https://twitter.com/MicheleBachmann/status/698642572575518720 Full of archaic speech and pandering to the lowest common denominator?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Apparently 125 days is the longest ever. Obama has 342 days left. I believe that's the longest between submission of the nomination to the Senate and confirmation. John Tyler has the longest ever, at more than a year, and it was expressly because the Senate wanted to delay confirmation until a new President was elected. Smith Thompson died in December 1843 and his replacement was confirmed in February 1845, one month before Tyler's term ended. Henry Baldwin died in April 1944 and the Senate successfully blocked all of Tyler's nominations. He was replaced in 1946 by a Polk nominee (who also had two other failed nominees for the seat, one of whom refused appointment and the other of whom was defeated). TheAngryDrunk posted:I think thats the longest vacancy. We were discussing longest from nomination to confirmation. I think it's still fair, because Tyler made something like 9 nominations during that time and they kept getting shot down or not receiving a vote. It's not as if Tyler sat on his hands doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
What landmark cases wouldn't have happened if everyone on the Court shared Scalia's originalism and textualism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:What landmark cases wouldn't have happened if everyone on the Court shared Scalia's originalism and textualism. All of the bad ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:What landmark cases wouldn't have happened if everyone on the Court shared Scalia's originalism and textualism. Miranda E: You're asking what cases wouldn't have happened if the Court was all Scalia's, right? E2: I know Miranda was before Scalia's time, but he would have overturned it in Dickerson v. United States. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
edit: misread the quote
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:What landmark cases wouldn't have happened if everyone on the Court shared Scalia's originalism and textualism. Weeks
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:20
|
|