This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

[applegrove]

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

by Christian Farias at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-hillary-clinton-nominees_us_580fed9ae4b08582f88cb00c?section=politics

"SNIP............


“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.

Shapiro is well-versed in constitutional issues, and his argument has a legal, if contorted, basis. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly stands in the way of senators who would be willing to destroy the nation’s highest court ― if not an entire branch of the federal government ― to stop Clinton from selecting judges who share her views.

But McCain’s comments suggesting a total blockade initially faced opposition, even from some members of his own party. “We can’t just simply stonewall” those hypothetical Clinton nominees, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Of course, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley is doing exactly that to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.


.............SNIP"

[exboyfil]

1. Get 50 senators and invoke nuclear option

McCain and Cruz have given plenty of political cover as far as I am concerned.

[lindysalsagal]

12. I've read they're already laying the groundwork to do just that.

Time to stock the scotus and protect the next generation.

[Salviati]

29. Indeed. I hope that the Dems don't threaten to do it.

Don't give the republicans a chance to walk back what they've said, just pull the trigger on the nuclear option the first chance they get, no threats, no negotiations, no compromises, just do it.

[wildeyed]

34. Exactly what you said.

They lose the game so they want to take the ball and go home now

[PoliticAverse]

2. Actually no. The President could always make recess appointments. n/t

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

4. If they try to block judge appointments she should just find the most liberal judge she can

To appoint temporarily until a permanent one is confirmed. They will change their tune then.

[leftynyc]

13. She should nominate Pres Obama

Nominee doesn't have to be a judge.

[PoliticAverse]

17. He's indicated he doesn't want the job. n/t

[onenote]

19. +1

[leftynyc]

21. Has he really?

Could be the first lawyer I've ever heard of that didn't want to sit on the Court.

[PoliticAverse]

22. "But I think being a Justice is a little bit too monastic for me."

"Particularly after having spent six years and what will be eight years in this bubble, I think I need to get outside a little bit more.”

From: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief

and:

“My guess is that his aspirations for his post-presidency extend beyond a Supreme Court appointment,” the spokesman said of Obama.

Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, “would have plenty of ideas for how he would do a job like that,” Earnest said. But he added Obama would prefer to handle a wider range of issues after he leaves the White House.

From: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/267360-wh-obama-doesnt-want-supreme-court-appointment

[leftynyc]

36. Good for him

I think both he and Michelle are destined to do some really great things after this. They've earned doing whatever it is they want.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. If Republicans don't recess, then he can not do it.

[sofa king]

16. If the Senate ever goes into recess again, that is.

[onenote]

18. only if there is a recess.

And the Supreme Court has effectively validated the strategy (employed admittedly by both parties) of avoiding "recesses" and thus avoiding recess appointments.

[uponit7771]

3. Recess appointments stand paramount and didn't the USSC give power to the present in the end to ...

... select judges?

tia

[GeorgeGist]

5. Take to SCOTUS and find out, Ilya.

[peggysue2]

6. Read this article earlier today

And find the mindset horrifying. The Republican party has devolved into a Party of Vandals. If they can't have their way, they'll dismantle and burn everything down. Including the Supreme Court, the third pillar of Government. It's thoroughly disgusting. While these discussions are going on, Republican House members are already planning 4 years of Clinton witch hunts. Because what else are they capable of? Certainly not any real legislation, not when raw hatred is their only driver.

Sickening! Grown men acting like petty, spiteful adolescents. And Cruz, the great Constitutional scholar, has given a half-nod to this nonsense.

They have no shame.

[Journeyman]

8. So the first thing they do is take away the "honeymoon period" from the 1st woman President? . . .

I can't see this backfiring at all. It'll play great, all the way to the midterms.

[Coyotl]

9. The minority party doesn't get to block judical appointments!

The new liberal court will indeed be "The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It"

[Divine Discontent]

11. of course the ratfuckers wanna take the ball that isn't theirs and run off with it!

saying just let the court go empty is Anti-American... but par for the course for Libertarians/Conservatives....



RATFUCKERS

[JCMach1]

14. Advise and consent doesn't mean block

Maybe have the Supremes take that case... Lol. Court could order a vote if Senate rules violate the Constitution.

[onenote]

20. The Court would never take the case.

It would be rejected as involving a "political question".

And in the highly unlikely event they took the case, they'd almost certainly rule that the Judicial Branch has no authority to tell the Senate how to conduct its business.

[JCMach1]

24. Probably they wouldn't take it... but there would be grounds for such a move by the

nominee.

[onenote]

25. I'm not sure what you mean by "grounds."

Last edited Thu Oct 27, 2016, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

There is no legal basis for a nominee to sue the Senate for not acting on a pending nomination. The Constitution doesn't require it and it certainly doesn't set any time limit within which a nomination needs to be acted upon. Lots of nominations remain pending for a long time or never get acted on. While its unusual for a SCOTUS nomination not to be acted on, it's not the first time a nomination has been pending for a long time or the first time a nomination was effectively blocked without an "up or down" vote.

As my other post discusses, this is a situation where Constitutional expectations are not backed up with a Constitutional mandate.

[JCMach1]

33. Standing with the court for a case...

Anyway, my logic makes as much sense as the original article.

There are all kind of overreaches people can dream up...

[onenote]

35. A court won't get to the standing question

Standing is one type of justiciability issue. But because the case that a nominee would bring would present a "political" question, the courts would decline to hear the case without having to reach standing.

And if a court did reach standing, they likely would find none is present. For standing there has to be a redressable injury in fact. A nominee has no legal right to be nominated or to be voted on (and even they had such a right, when would it become vested -- there is nothing in the law that sets a timeframe for a vote.) Every nominee for every ambassadorship, cabinet post, federal judgeship who doesn't get voted on could be bringing a lawsuit. Not going to happen. And who is the defendant that can be ordered to do something? There are 100 Senators. Who would the court direct to something and what would they direct them to do? Hold a hearing? Set a deadline for the hearing? Force the committee to report the nominee to the full Senate for an up/down vote?

There are over 3 dozen judicial nominations that have been pending even longer than Garland's nomination. While hearings, and sometimes committee votes, have been held on most of them, there are several that haven't had any action at all. There's a reason none of them have thought about suing the Senate.

[BobbyDrake]

15. These republicans operate under the delusion that they will control the Senate forever.

They're wrong.

[onenote]

23. The Supreme Court as we know it isn't anything guaranteed by the Constitution

Congress has pretty much unfettered authority when it comes to setting the parameters of the Supreme Court. For example, there have been other periods in our history where there were an even number of justices either because that was the number set by Congress or because of a vacancy that left an even number on the Court. Even when the Court is at full strength, it can and does have the authority to decide cases with less than a full membership, even if it is an even number. in fact, the very first Supreme Court, per the original Judiciary Act, had six members (an even number), with a quorum of four required to act. Today the number, by statute, is 9 justices, but the required quorum is only six.

Ultimately, as I pointed out in a somewhat lengthy post earlier this year, what we are seeing is an illustration of the difference between Constitutional expectations and Constitutional mandates. It is expected that Congress will enact legislation creating the Court and specifying the number of justices. And it is expected that the Senate will consider and act on nominations to the Court. But those expectations are not the same as an enforceable Constitutional mandate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027636790

[MattP]

26. She should nominate Michelle Obama!!

[pangaia]

27. forget trying to win all 50 states,.

Go after the fucking senate and house.. NOW !!!!!!!

[randr]

28. Our Supreme Court and Government are secure

It is the Republican Party that has a diminishing life left.

[bullimiami]

30. What's to stop a pres Clinton from apppinting someone to the seat?

Senate would scream and yell but would have to take their case to the Supreme Court

2 branches can play loose with the rules.

[Ms. Yertle]

31. Um, the Constitution?

The President has the power to nominate the justices, but the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

[Historic NY]

32. The noise you hear is John Jay & John Marshall rolling in their graves....

[One of the 99]

37. Once again putting 'County First'

Hypocrite!