It’s a BFD to political junkies and activists, it’s just procedural noise to the vast majority of the electorate. Very few average voters will shift their votes based on SCOTUS profile concerns.
I beleive a challenge to Citizen’s United and an abortion case and making there way.
It might be to the Democrats advantage to postpone this to next year anyway, in hopes that they win the Senate back. They would then be able to get through a more liberal nominee than under the present Congress.
Yes.
The Supreme Court has already granted cert on cases involving:
[ul]
[li]Climate change regulations.[/li][li]Abortion rights.[/li][li]The President’s immigration executive orders.[/li][li]One person one vote.[/li][li]Obamacare Part III.[/li][li]Affirmative Action.[/li][li]Public sector unions.[/li][/ul]
Two or three of those are likely to be blockbusters. Especially abortion.
I don’t think it will shift many votes, but it could increase turnout, and it will definitely impact political strategy for various campaigns, as well as sitting Senators and the President. It will be one of the biggest campaign issues, guaranteed. The interaction between the President and Senate over the next several months will definitely have an impact on the campaigns.
And as I said in another thread, this increases the chances people will actually pay attention when candidates are asked, “will you nominate a justice who will do X?” And candidates, especially Republican, will have to answer knowing how both sides of the aisle will respond to whatever they say.
I wonder if conservatives still think they can elect a President all by themselves? Hmmmm.
Condolences to his friends and family.
I won’t miss him.
I’ll wait for a better thread to discuss his replacement.
It’s February. Certainly, Obama will appoint a new justice and get them approved by January of next year, don’t you think? That’s 11 months. Does it usually take that long?
Wow. 79 years old, so not surprising, but wow. How many 5-4 decisions have come down ‘recently’ where Scalia was one of the 5? Heller, the CO2 smackdown of the EPA: I’m sure there are lots of others. And where President Obama, or a hypothetical President H. Clinton, Sanders, or fill-in-the-blank, would appoint a Justice who’d vote the other way?
IMHO, Shodan’s right: this is now the issue governing who to vote for in 2016 for the Presidency.
Sorry to see a noted jurist pass, but he was #1 on my Ko-Ko list.
Without Scalia, what would have been 5-4 decisions in favor of the conservative side would become 4-4 decisions, in which the decision of the lower court would stand (wouldn’t it?).
Dunno, when the Democrats hamper the Supreme Court, just for political gain, the Republicans don’t have any great gains election-wise, so, it’ll be probably about the same this time around. Surprised?
Same age as Kennedy, younger than Ginsburg. Makes you think.
Correct (assuming he wasn’t the key to persuading another justice on any given case).
From CNN:
If he was there for a hunting trip, you’d think someone would guess he was just sleeping late and go to wake him up. ‘Yo, Tony. Y’all gonna come huntin’ with us?’ Instead it sounds like, ‘Heh. If you snooze, you lose! Let’s go kill something.’
‘Unresponsive’ could very well mean ‘dead’, and he may have been dead before the hunt. So if they had checked on him, it may have spoiled the trip.
If the Senate drags its feet too long maybe President Sanders will be able to appoint Barack Obama to the court. That’d make some heads explode.
Given the age and health of much of the SC, it should have been very, very, VERY high on the list already.
Apparently something similar happened to President Tyler and the vacancy lasted 15 months.
It’s almost always the top thing I consider in President. I hope it is for everyone.
Off-topic, but what is it with high-ranking conservatives and the propensity to spend their spare time dicking around on some ranch in Texas?