Reports that Justice Scalia has died

[Flyer]

This may be of some interest. 538.com linked to a study called “Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-August 2010.”
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

A few people have been nominated more than once, so there have been 36 unsuccessful nominations, representing 31 people.

Opposition to the nominating President played a role in at least 16 of the 36 nominations that were not confirmed. Many of the 16 were put forward by a President in the last year of his presidency—seven occurred after a successor President had been elected, but before the transfer of power to the new administration.

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two unsuccessful nominations (Fortas and Thornberry) occurred during the last seven months of his presidency, when, having announced he was not seeking reelection, he was considered by some to be a lame duck even before the election of his successor. Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.

(page 9 of the complete PDF.)

[Northern_Piper]

@Colibri

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?).

@Hari_Seldon

Yes, but it will be no precedent.

That’s right. It takes a positive vote from the Supreme Court to overturn a decision of the lower court. A 4-4 split means no majority to overturn, so the lower court decision stands.

Since there’s no majority on the reasons, it’s no precedent. Has the same effect as a per incuriam dismissal.

I wrote an article about it several years ago.

[Eureka]

@Flyer

This may be of some interest. 538.com linked to a study called “Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-August 2010.”
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

A few people have been nominated more than once, so there have been 36 unsuccessful nominations, representing 31 people.
(page 9 of the complete PDF.)

So the “good” news is that if Obama nominates someone and the Republicans refuse
to confirm that person, it’ll be politics as usual, and not some new form of nastiness.

Sigh.

[Quimby]

FWIW when Obama nominates someone, the longest a nomination waited was 125 days. Obama has about 340 days left in office so if the GOP refuses to even attempt a confirmation, the record will be tripled.

Nominations during final years in office are not unprecedented. Even Saint Reagan did one (with a Dem controlled Congress to boot).

[mhendo]

@Quimby

Nominations during final years in office are not unprecedented. Even Saint Reagan did one (with a Dem controlled Congress to boot).

Actually, i believe that Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987 (so, not quite in his final year of office), but Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 (final year).

The moderator of the Republican debate last night had to correct Ted Cruz on the issue. Cruz claimed that no Supreme Court justice had been confirmed in the final year of a presidency for 80 years. He was, as usual, either lying or ignorant.

[Knorf]

@mhendo

The moderator of the Republican debate last night had to correct Ted Cruz on the issue. Cruz claimed that no Supreme Court justice had been confirmed in the final year of a presidency for 80 years. He was, as usual, either lying or ignorant.

It doesn’t appear that he cares about this; he only cares about being called out publicly on it.

[enipla]

From Wiki

@wiki

Before 1981 the approval process of Justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).

Bolding mine.

Obama has 300 days. And (are we in the Pit? No. Ok) candidate Cruz has already said that he will filibuster to prevent Obama from appointing a new judge. He ‘Tweeted’ that 24 minutes after Scalias death.

So much for respecting the office of the Presidency.

@Cruz

“Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace [Scalia], they need to win the election. But I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortions on demand, partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification, and I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.”

He’s crazy.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

He is crazy, especially about the Second Amendment. It’s been incorporated, it’s a done deal. There’s no going back.

[ElvisL1ves]

@jayjay

He was also confirmed to the DC Circuit bench by 97-0, which SHOULD (in a world in which one of the major parties and their base aren’t batshit insane) make it hard for the Senate GOP to argue that he’s not qualified.

No problem for a hack pol who knows the electorate has short memories. Just say he was qualified for DC Appeals, where the decisions are based on technical reasons and he’s a good technical judge, but the SC makes policy and his political views are just too radical, etc.

Doesn’t have to be true, just has to be what your base wants to hear.

[Knorf]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

He is crazy, especially about the Second Amendment. It’s been incorporated, it’s a done deal. There’s no going back.

Agreed. Arguably, the same is true of abortion.

[Johnny_L.A]

Heh.

@Jim Vejvoda

Scalia died on President’s Day weekend. In Black History Month. In an election year. God’s sense of humor is darker than Louis CK’s.

[Count_Blucher]

@Johnny_L.A

Heh.

[Jim Vejvoda] Scalia died on President’s Day weekend. In Black History Month. In an election year. God’s sense of humor is darker than Louis CK’s.[/Jim Vejvoda]

Look, tomorrow they are going to bury him.
It may well be a 6-1 decision… and he’s welcome to dissent… but they Will bury him.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Count_Blucher

Look, tomorrow they are going to bury him.
It may well be a 6-1 decision… and he’s welcome to dissent… but they Will bury him.

I think that a panel of women should decide what to do with his body.

[Bricker]

@Johnny_L.A

I think that a panel of women should decide what to do with his body.

Why? Is there another human being living in his body?

[Fear_Itself]

Scalia’s vacation at the luxury hunting lodge was a gift from someone who was the target of a suit declined by the Supreme Court.

In late 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an age discrimination suit (Hinga, James V. Mic Group, LLC) against a subsidiary of the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter, which is owned by John B. Poindexter. Poindexter also owns the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, where Scalia was vacationing when he died last weekend. According to the Washington Post, Scalia didn’t pay for his flight to the ranch, or for his room at the luxury ranch. His food and beverages were also free.

Karma’s a bitch.

[Quimby]

@Fear_Itself

Scalia’s vacation at the luxury hunting lodge was a gift from someone who was the target of a suit declined by the Supreme Court.Karma’s a bitch.

He constantly was doing stuff like that. Thomas too. That was why he should have been impeached.