Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is dead

[Dave_LF]

If the next president is a Democrat, then even the same Senate might be forced to accept that they can't leave the seat vacant for four years. Maybe.

[Frelga]

Or eight.

What do the current justices have to say about this?

[CosmicBob]

Alito has said that they can manage with 8 for now. I don't think anyone else has publicly commented. I don't know that they get much say in the matter though.

Scalia isn't going to be the last one to die in office, so the Senate has to figure this out.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The president has reportedly narrowed his choice down to three Court of Appeals Judges, Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford. Srinisvasan and Garland are both judges on the D.C. Circuit, considered the most powerful court in the country after the SCOTUS. Garland is the chief judge of the court. Watford, who is black, is a judge on the Ninth Circuit, the largest circuit encompassing nine western states. Garland was on the short list for both of Obama's previous nominations, but at 63 is older than some would like, simply because a younger judge would likely serve longer. Honestly, I think if he is the nominee this time, it would be because he is likely not to get confirmed. Srinivasan would be the first Indian-American on the court (in fact the first Asian). He has served in the administration of both parties, and was confirmed to his current position by a 97-0 vote. Watford was confirmed by a much more contentious 61-34 vote. I suspect that he is really Obama's first choice, but he probably has the least chance of getting confirmed, although arguably the chances are so low for any nominee right now that that might not matter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The choice is reportedly down to two, Garland and Srinivasan, with the choice coming soon, maybe as soon as tomorrow.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An announcement is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. EST (less than an hour and half from now).

[Inanna]

I know! Why am I on pins here?


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Inanna]

It will be Garland. NY Times just updated...

---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yup. Poor guy. Passed over twice, and only nominated when there is almost no chance of being confirmed.

[Primula Baggins]

Except in the lame-duck session, it appears—some of the GOP senators have said they might agree to go ahead with the confirmation if Hillary Clinton is the next president. No doubt because a newly elected president (especially if she wins by a landslide) might well make a bolder choice and even have the Senate backing to get it through.

[yovargas]

Except in the lame-duck session, it appears—some of the GOP senators have said they might agree to go ahead with the confirmation if Hillary Clinton is the next president. No doubt because a newly elected president (especially if she wins by a landslide) might well make a bolder choice and even have the Senate backing to get it through.

Politics:

[Cerin]

I see that McConnell is saying it's the President who is politicizing the Supreme Court process. I wonder if anyone will ask him to explain that one. *shakes head in disbelief*

[Primula Baggins]

Some of them seem to feel that Obama is solely responsible for the current tense political standoff. I'm sorry, but to me this has a flavor of "I wish you didn't make me have to hit you, baby."

[Cerin]

Do you mean the current tense political Supreme Court standoff? How can anyone possibly claim the Pres. is responsible when it's the Republicans who decided not to do their job?

[JewelSong]

I think Prim was agreeing with you, Cerin.

[Cerin]

Yes, I realize Prim was agreeing. I'm just flummoxed by the chutzpah of such a brazenly false claim. I'd really like to hear the twisted logic they've formulated to support this one. (With the refusal to consider nominees, it was -- the American people have already started choosing the next president, so that person should be the one to fill the vacancy.)

edit

And I'd love for someone in the media to point out the difference between Republicans refusing to fulfill their constitutionally mandated responsibility of holding confirmation hearings, and holding confirmation hearings but rejecting a nominee. I see that Paul Ryan has made a statement saying it's their right not to confirm a nominee -- attempting to equate their refusal to hold hearings with the due process of holding a hearing and then rejecting a nominee.

[Primula Baggins]

By "tense political standoff" I meant most of the past seven years, Cerin, especially since the 2010 midterm election.

[Cerin]

I thought that's what you might have meant, Prim (which claim I find equally bizarre and false; yet they always get a pass on these things).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm curious to know whether people think that things would be any different if the situation was reversed. Let's say that Romney had won in 2012, but the Democrats took back the Senate in 2014, and it was Ruth Bader Ginsberg who had passed away earlier this year, in the middle of an equally heated election contest. The parallel is not exact since the conservative wing already mostly controls the court, but it would be an opportunity to solidify that majority with someone that conservatives would find to be a more reliable fifth vote than Kennedy on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Do people really think that a Harry Reid (or Charles Schumer) led Senate would allow Romney to fill the vacancy in that circumstance?

Personally, I very much doubt it.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sure they would fight it. I'm not sure they would refuse to even have the fight.