Discussion for article #245990
2 Likes
" I did not hold Justice Scalia’s views, but he was a dedicated public servant who brought energy and passion to the bench."
Much better than calling him “brilliant.”
38 Likes
A smart play appears to be nominating Sri Srinivasan. He was nominated by Obama and confirmed as a Judge in 2013…by a 97-0 Senate vote. The Republicans would look like idiots to block him now, after unanimously confirming him a few years ago, and it would definitely cost them seats in the elections, House and Senate.
19 Likes
I wish she had added that one of the primary responsibilities given to a president when elected is to choose Supreme Court justices. And President Obama has won two elections. He should be the one to nominate a judge, unequivocally. Elections have consequences. One of those is Court nominees.
14 Likes
I have a feeling that will work its way into her comments and speeches over the next few weeks.
7 Likes
Brilliant, Sec. Clinton. Could not agree more with you. Btw, thanks for getting that out before the cluck-clucking starts over on CBS.
13 Likes
VERY intersting pick.
3 Likes
It seems hypocritical that these religious right evangelical politicians are always saying they run because God told them to.; that pregnancy happens because God wanted it to happen; that leaders are “the face of God” etc etc etc. Yet when an event like this happens it is not God’s action and they will not allow the “will do God” take place by the Presisent doing his constitutional duty of appointing a replacement followed by the senate applying their duty of holding hearings and voting yes or no.
6 Likes
I agree. My guess is that as primarily a statement of condolences she chose not to put too much of that into it, and I think that’s a wise choice.
6 Likes
Trashing the constitution, only ok if you’re a Republican.
1 Like
Are you kidding?
Oh, this election race just changed…
Since most people aren’t smart enough to have followed the “nuanced” details that the next President WILL select 1-3 Justices, maybe an actual vacancy will wake them up to what’s at stake in these elections.
If we had a Democratic Senate, there wouldn’t be any issues, for example.
The “pox on both their houses” is such a specious argument, and this is why it matters.
And why, even though I’m for Bernie, I’ll still be voting for Hillary or a potted plant if that is the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party.
22 Likes
Posted in the first breaking news entry of Scalia’s passing a link to a MJ article about the guy. It’s probably buried in that long thread, so I’m posting it here again.
1 Like
The Republicans may not be thinking this one through. Right now, with control of the Senate, they can bargain with Obama over the next appointment. A year from now, who knows? I don’t think the chances are that great that they get a shot at appointing a replacement.
4 Likes
Damn, took Obama less than 1 minute to switch from the eulogy to insisting that we need to approve a nominee!
This is probably as close to a literal Civil War as we’ll see in our lifetime.
2 Likes
Not at all. A brilliant jurist can sway the court. A passioned jurist only writes vitriolic dissents (Like Fat Tony).
11 Likes
Question: If Hillary or Bernie win in November, will the Republicans then demand that the nomination wait until after the 2020 elections so the subsequent President can name the nominee?
21 Likes
Good point. Made me laugh about “Republicans may not be thinking this one through.” Still, I hold out hope Obama will go full-bucket on his nominee.
8 Likes
Boom. Beautiful
The right wing can’t claim Scalia defended the Constitution and then advocate that we take away the President’s Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice when there’s a vacancy.
8 Likes
Of course they can. They’re hypocrites. They pull stunts like that all the time.
4 Likes