# This election has just changed, Justice Scalia has died **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052 "2016-02-13T22:12:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/121 "2016-02-14T02:03:47Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Huh? Rehnquist died in office just in 2005. Yes, sorry, my apologies, I misinterpreted the data I was looking at. And before that it was Robert Jackson in 1954. It’s rare, though: > **[Death in office a rarity for modern justices](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/13/death-office-rarity-modern-justices/80352230/#)** > > Scalia was only the second justice to die while serving on the Supreme Court in more than 50 years. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/122 "2016-02-14T02:05:26Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Do you believe that Clinton would nominate someone like Scalia? 'Cause I don’t. No, of course not. But her ties to Wall Street and Corporate America will absolutely factor into any nominee she might consider. We’ll _never_ get a true Liberal or Progressive on the Court with her. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/123 "2016-02-14T02:06:40Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Do you believe that Clinton would nominate someone like Scalia? 'Cause I don’t. Oh c’mon we all know that both parties are exactly the same. I see little difference between Antonin Scalia and Earl Warren. A true progressive would nominate Zaatu from the Gamma Quadrant. That would be real change. True progressives also ignore the Senate confirmation process. Only sellouts take political realities seriously. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/124 "2016-02-14T02:08:37Z")
One thing about a court split 4-4 on numerous issues is that it would leave circuit court decisions in place on those questions, though they would only apply to that circuit. The stay that the Supreme Court recently issued on Obama’s environmental regs, for instance - if the DC Circuit rules in favor of the Administration, the conservatives on the Supreme Court wouldn’t have 5 votes to reverse the DC Circuit, so the regs would be implemented. And as has already been said, everything before this Court right now will only be voted on by the 8 surviving Justices. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/125 "2016-02-14T02:08:51Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > We’ll _never_ get a true Liberal or Progressive on the Court with her. And that’s likely true. Do you expect a true Liberal or Progressive to be appointed by any of the Republican candidates? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/126 "2016-02-14T02:09:20Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Oh c’mon we all know that both parties are exactly the same. I see little difference between Antonin Scalia and Earl Warren. A true progressive would nominate Zaatu from the Gamma Quadrant. That would be real change. > > True progressives also ignore the Senate confirmation process. Only sellouts take political realities seriously. LMAO! Best. Comment. Evar. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/127 "2016-02-14T02:15:46Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > He don’t mind the sun sometimes. Took me a minute to place this one! _They were all in love with dyin’, they were doin’ it in Texas_ > [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](#): > > This Senate would block Obama’s order at McDonald’s if they could. I wish this was hyperbole, but they’ve filibustered nominees for months that they eventually confirmed all but unanimously. And it wasn’t like they were holding further hearings or done anything else that would have given them new reason to drop their opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/128 "2016-02-14T02:17:17Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > True or false, more Democrats think Hillary is electable. Anything that emphasizes the consequences of the GOP winning is bad for Sanders. I have no idea why people here keep repeating this; it’s simply not true. [Poll](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/15398%20NBCWSJ%20September%20Poll%20%282%29.pdf) (NBC/WSJ; Sep. 20-24) after [poll](http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/cnn-orc-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democratic-debate/index.html) (CNN/ORC; Oct. 14-17) after [poll](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261756-poll-sanders-more-electable-than-hillary-against-top) (Quinnipiac; Dec. 2) after [poll](http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) (Quinnipiac; Feb. 5) are telling the exact opposite story: Bernie is more electable than Clinton — he beats all of the Republican candidates by wider margins than she does. And against Rubio, Bernie ties or wins and she loses. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/129 "2016-02-14T02:18:27Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > And that’s likely true. Do you expect a true Liberal or Progressive to be appointed by any of the Republican candidates? No. What’s your point? Kindly make one already. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/130 "2016-02-14T02:20:13Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I have no idea why people here keep repeating this; it’s simply not true. You are conflating what people believe about electability with actual electability. They aren’t the same. (You’re also wrong to rely on national polling at this stage, but that’s neither here nor there.) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/131 "2016-02-14T02:24:37Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > No. What’s your point? Kindly make one already. Oh, good grief. You’re arguing that the possibility of Clinton appointing a Supreme Court justice is horrific, even more horrific than the possibility of Trump or Cruz doing so. I think I’ll do what I did in 2008, and put you on ignore until the election is over. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/132 "2016-02-14T02:27:28Z")
Could Obama nominate himself? Just wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/133 "2016-02-14T02:37:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Until Scalia is replaced, the SCOTUS will consist of four justices appointed by Republican presidents (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) and four appointed by Democrats (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan). Watch for a year of gridlock. Not really gridlock, because if the SC Justices tie 4-4, the lower court ruling is upheld. It just doesn’t become binding precedent in the whole country. But it remains binding precedent for that judicial circuit. As such, it tends to have some moral or persuasive influence on the other circuits in the country. So you might see some appeals rushed to the SC, so that if they are tied, the favorable lower court ruling is upheld. And you would certainly see lawyers for cases in-process in lower courts adjusting their arguments to align with the opinions expressed by SC Justices. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/134 "2016-02-14T02:38:53Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Both sides have always seen 2016 as an election dependent on turnout, and an open Supreme Court seat is as big a rallying cry as the Republicans could hope for (and the Democrats, for that matter). Yes but isn’t it traditional said that when the turnout is large, democrats win? Wouldn’t the GOP be aware of that? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/135 "2016-02-14T02:40:40Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#): > > Could Obama nominate himself? Just wondering. I don’t think so. You can’t serve in more than one branch of gov’t simultaneously, so he couldn’t be confirmed while still Prez. And I believe the end of a Presidential term ends any nomination put forward, so he couldn’t nominate and then resign and then have the Senate confirm. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/136 "2016-02-14T02:53:15Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I have no idea why people here keep repeating this; it’s simply not true. > > [Poll](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/15398%20NBCWSJ%20September%20Poll%20%282%29.pdf) (NBC/WSJ; Sep. 20-24) after [poll](http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/cnn-orc-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democratic-debate/index.html) (CNN/ORC; Oct. 14-17) after [poll](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261756-poll-sanders-more-electable-than-hillary-against-top) (Quinnipiac; Dec. 2) after [poll](http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2321) (Quinnipiac; Feb. 5) are telling the exact opposite story: Bernie is more electable than Clinton — he beats all of the Republican candidates by wider margins than she does. And against Rubio, Bernie ties or wins and she loses. You’re posting in a thread talking about the insane lengths to which the Republicans will likely go to prove to their base that they are totally obstructing any attempt by the sitting President of the United States to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What do you think the Republicans might say or do if an avowed socialist is the Democratic candidate? How do you think a public that not merely enables these Republicans but votes them into control of the House and Senate and most governorships and legislatures might respond? The world is crazy but not so crazy that anyone can make a case for Sanders’ winning. > [@Little\_Pig](#): > > Could Obama nominate himself? Just wondering. There are no constraints on the nomination. You could be nominated. Vladimir Putin could be nominated. I see no reason why Obama couldn’t nominate himself. The Founders never even considered the possibility that an unqualified person could be nominated so they set no boundaries. > [@Simplicio](#): > > I don’t think so. You can’t serve in more than one branch of gov’t simultaneously, so he couldn’t be confirmed while still Prez. And I believe the end of a Presidential term ends any nomination put forward, so he couldn’t nominate and then resign and then have the Senate confirm. The Constitution limits the ability of a member of Congress to be appointed to another office, but they can always resign their seat first. Nothing is said about the President being constrained. Again, they never dreamed it would happen. The Constitution is a framework, not an all-encompassing logic system. It doesn’t try to predict whatever notion anyone in the future might have. As anyone reading this Board regularly should know, there are a zillion scenarios that the Constitution is silent about and that no court has ever ruled on. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/137 "2016-02-14T02:56:10Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I think I’ll do what I did in 2008, and put you on ignore until the election is over. Do not announce the names of posters on your gnore list. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/138 "2016-02-14T03:01:54Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You are conflating what people believe about electability with actual electability. They aren’t the same. No I’m not. If people didn’t think he was electable, they wouldn’t respond that they’d vote for him. That’s just basic logic. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > (You’re also wrong to rely on national polling at this stage, but that’s neither here nor there.) Who said “rely”? They show you are incorrect about what people think. They don’t think that way, as their responses to the polls through current indicate. > [@Frank](#): > > Oh, good grief. You’re arguing that the possibility of Clinton appointing a Supreme Court justice is horrific, even more horrific than the possibility of Trump or Cruz doing so. I think I’ll do what I did in 2008, and put you on ignore until the election is over. Oh, good grief, I did nothing of the sort. Man this place has gone to shit. I expect to be debated on my actual points, not ones you make the hell up. Bye, Felicia. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re posting in a thread talking about the insane lengths to which the Republicans will likely go to prove to their base that they are totally obstructing any attempt by the sitting President of the United States to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What do you think the Republicans might say or do if an avowed socialist is the Democratic candidate? How do you think a public that not merely enables these Republicans but votes them into control of the House and Senate and most governorships and legislatures might respond? The world is crazy but not so crazy that anyone can make a case for Sanders’ winning. You’re wrong. I couldn’t care less what “the Republicans” would have to say about it because their say is irrelevant to getting Bernie elected. They won’t vote for Bernie _or_ Hillary, even if Hillary admitted once and for all that she’s actually one of them, so they’re a non-issue. And once [Bernie’s elected](http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-sanders-is-more-electable-than-people-think/), he’ll make the nominations. Simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/139 "2016-02-14T03:08:35Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > No I’m not. If people didn’t think he was electable, they wouldn’t respond that they’d vote for him. That’s just basic logic. No, it isn’t. Lots of people think Hillary is more electable but vote for Bernie in the primary. Do I really need to cite the exit polls for you on this? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/140 "2016-02-14T03:30:52Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > You’re wrong. I couldn’t care less what “the Republicans” would have to say about it because their say is irrelevant to getting Bernie elected. They won’t vote for Bernie _or_ Hillary, even if Hillary admitted once and for all that she’s actually one of them, so they’re a non-issue. And once [Bernie’s elected](http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-sanders-is-more-electable-than-people-think/), he’ll make the nominations. Simple as that. Not everyone who votes in an election is Democrat or Republican. And turnout among those who are party loyalists is utterly critical. These factors are totally relevant to the outcome of an election. However, I’m discontinuing this hijack here. I’ll look for an appropriate thread to discuss it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052.md?page=8)