Scalia just died (really). How will this affect the race? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2024, 09:15:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Scalia just died (really). How will this affect the race? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Scalia just died (really). How will this affect the race?  (Read 24427 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« on: February 13, 2016, 06:29:00 PM »

The last time a Justice died (Rehnquist), I believe Roberts was named the successor two days later.

That was completely different because Roberts had been nominated to replace O'Connor who was resigning once she had a successor confirmed.

Yea, they just slotted him over to the Chief Justice spot.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2016, 06:40:04 PM »


54s54 seconds ago 

Interesting, there are 54 Republicans in McConnell's majority.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2016, 07:04:07 PM »

Well it is now dominating the news cycle, which may make it difficult for candidates to change the state of the race from what is with the exception of the debate tonight.

If Trump wins SC, there might be a desire on the part of some on the establishment to make a deal and support Trump in exchange for promises to appoint a specific person they would find acceptable.

Trump is also a much cheaper candidate because he can self fund and therefore they can throw all of their money at the Senate and screwing with the Democratic nominating process.

The interests move much more towards cutting a deal with Trump both because of fears of Cruz and also inability of the others to gain traction.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2016, 01:19:00 AM »

No Republican can in this day and age vote to put a pro-choice majority on the court and survive.

The elections are too polarized and base turnout is just too important.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2016, 01:56:57 AM »


I wouldn't mind if it were to say replace a retiring Thomas or Kennedy. Scalia is really irreplaceable, but I think you need someone with a strong record as legal scholar as much as in terms of judicial philosophy simply because Scalia was such an influential force and really a bedrock in that sense and that is just as important as well. I fear Lee would be a tremendous step down in that sense.

Of course this point is all moot unless Republicans win the White House and hold the Senate in November.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2016, 02:40:39 AM »


I wouldn't mind if it were to say replace a retiring Thomas or Kennedy. Scalia is really irreplaceable, but I think you need someone with a strong record as legal scholar as much as in terms of judicial philosophy simply because Scalia was such an influential force and really a bedrock in that sense and that is just as important as well. I fear Lee would be a tremendous step down in that sense.

Of course this point is all moot unless Republicans win the White House and hold the Senate in November.

This stuff goes both ways.  If you think Republicans are replacing Kennedy with someone who strongly opposes abortion and gay marriage l without first nuking the SCOTUS filibuster, you're out of your mind.

Such is the danger when you read stuff into the constitution that is not there, it can just as easily be read out.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2016, 08:22:10 PM »

A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

Well I did specifically state that Clinton vetoed spending bills and the public still sided with him. Given that, there's more evidence it wouldn't hurt Obama than not. Everything you're saying is speculation. And I wouldn't really discount using the SCOTUS nomination as a reason, either. Republicans trying to steal a nomination that isn't theirs to make isn't a minor thing, especially after you guys got to shape the court for generations.



He vetoed spending bills because he disagreed with what they contained. His position was more popular and Newt was a blundering fool in the public sphere.

OBama vetoing a spending bill over something totally unrelated is a completely different ball game.

CNN earlier today: "No more confirmations until the next President takes office" - Chuck Schumer in JULY 2007.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.