That was after months and months of working and first voting DOWN Robert Bork by the Democrat Senate.

It's always a political game on both sides. :(

As I said in my last post...that's not really true.

Reagan appointed Robert Bork in 1987.
The Dems blocked it and finally Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy in 1988.

As I said...political games...

A little more info on the Reagan appointment.

Justice Powell resigned in the summer of 1987.
And the Democrat Senate did this:
"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was considered a moderate, often referred to as a "swing vote" in close decisions. Even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell, assuming that it would tilt the court rightward."

So yeah, before everyone starts saying how this kind of thing never happened before and it's just because it's the EVIL Republicans...please recognize that it's ALWAYS been like this.

BOTH of the ruling party's are pieces of shit.

Anyway...after they delayed Reagan's appointee for the rest of the year...Bork was withdrawn and Anthony Kennedy was appointed and approved and took his seat on Feb. 18th 1988.

So there was no replacement of him from June of 1987 until Feb. of 1988.

THAT is how these bureaucrats work in Washington D.C.

We should vote every one of them out. One term and go home.

:thumbsup

It is looking like the Republicans won't be able to hold on to the Senate in the next session of Congress....

Regardless of which scenario you think will play out regarding the timing of the appointment, there is tremendous pressure to appoint a known moderate.

Where did you see that?

I can't find any concrete info (other than opinion pieces). This is the actual way it stacks up (the Dems would have to gain 5 seats). Not seeing any indication that anyone thinks that is going to happen.

The only "pressure" is from politicians who are "moderate". But since most politicians on both "sides" are extremely passionate about what they believe in...there is a lot more "pressure" to go far right or far left (depending on whether Pres. Obama is able to get a nominee through or not).

I don't think the Republicans are going to let any "moderate" liberal in under any circumstance.

And I don't think they will accept a "moderate" conservative if a Republican takes office and makes a choice.

I think the "pressure" is on for an extremely conservative judge. :(

I have full faith that Obama will do the right thing, and appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will truly represent and stand by the American people.

Either an illegal Mexican, or a Syrian refugee. :thumbsup

If we toss out the Kennedy case, was there another situation where an SC judge stepped down or died during a president's last year in office and if so did that president simply defer the decision to his predecessor and not make an appointment?

So me a tradition is something we do a certain way because it is how we have always done it. To me this isn't tradition, it is simply a situation that has rarely if ever come up before.

I think the republicans won't settle for anyone less conservative than Scalia was and there is no way Obama will put up someone like that so the fight will be on.

I actually think if the republicans drag their feet and obstruct the process simply to drag this out it could hurt their candidate with moderate independent voters and if I were the democrat nominee I would point out their obstruction every chance I got.

That would be bad news.

Seriously.

Any reading of Scalia's decisions (specially his early pro-4th amendment rulings) indicate the man was, in terms of jurisprudence, more of a libertarian.

Sadly, 'conservative' tends more to lean on big state/big brother/enforced morality BS.

Up to a point he was more liberal regarding the 4th amendment...but his writings on gay marriage say "Not a Libertarian" and more of an extreme conservative.

I don't think it will hurt their nominee with the people already voting for him. What I think it will do is energize the Democratic base.

The Democrat voters are not very excited right now because they want Sanders but are getting force fed Hillary.
All the action and excitement is with Trump on the Republican side.

But a "call to arms" over a possible Supreme Court appointee could be just the thing that Hillary would need to actually get people passionate about her in the general election.

That's something that the DNC can use to turn the election to them.

Off course Obama can have his way with the court now.
Scalia was killed by a dart, shot from a gun. The dart was designed to penetrate, then dissolve to cause a heart attack with no sign of 'wrong doing'
Developed by the CIA decades ago.
They had to off him.
By design, they are going to take away our 1st and 2nd amendments :2 cents:

You could have a point...
The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports

I mean, enough votes so the other side can't put the nomination up for a vote at all. Republicans might not be able to handle this situation that way.

As I understand it...yeah, they do. All McConell has to do is NOT allow the nomination to be brought up for a vote at all.

The Majority party has that ability. If you recall Sen. Harry Reid refused to allow any bills that came from the Republican House to be voted on in the Senate. He played defense so that Pres. Obama wouldn't have to veto anything (plus made the Republicans look like obstructionists).

Also if the vote did go to the floor...it takes a "super majority" to get a Supreme Court nomination through. Meaning that 60 Senators have to vote "yes".

With the Republicans holding 54 seats...I don't see how that can happen. :(

Not allowing it to come to the floor for a vote would be a pretty big gamble for the Republicans. c.w. of the moment is that Obama will nominate a centrist. If Hillary or Bernie get in, I don't think that will be the case.

I can only hope the Republicans play shenanigans over a BO appointee, they'll not only lose the race for Potus, they'll lose Senate seats. It's insane our politicians are so out of touch with the people in this country. Both parties. Look how clueless Hillary is about women. It's why Sanders and Trump have so much support.

I think the Republicans have let their constituents down so many times over the last 7 years that they now have no choice but to show they have some backbone and not allow it to come to a vote.

On the flip side...this could be the spark that Hillary needs if she gets to the general election. Right now all the excitement is with Sanders and Trump. If Hillary gets installed over Sanders as the nominee...I think a lot of Democrats won't vote for her.

BUT...if she can frame the election as the fate of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance then Democrats might come out in droves to vote AGAINST the Republicans.

I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories. I find it hard to believe that anyone would attempt to kill someone in the Supreme Court in an attempt to remake the Supreme Court. With that said, people have been killed for a lot less.

However, I do have two serious issues with this....

If I understand correctly, security for someone on the Supreme Court is handled by the US Marshals. I find it odd they were not with him this entire weekend. I wonder if that is routine, and if so, why. Only a handful of people should get round the clock protection, but this should include members of the Supreme Court. Even more so when they are "hunting" with live rounds.

Then... A death certificate was issued by the coroner without the coroner so much as seeing the body. Reports were taken over the phone by the coroner with the local police department, and also with his doctors in Washington. This is permitted by Texas law, but... I find it odd that a coroner would do this in the case of an important government official.

Very odd.

i wish.... :(

LOL :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

My personal opinion is very few Democrats would willing to vote for anyone as conservative as Trump (2016 version) or Cruz. Thus, either Clinton or Sanders will still get the majority of the Democrat votes.

I don't think any Democrats would vote for Cruz.

Trump is polling damn well with Democrats though.
Poll: Nearly 20 Percent of Democrats Would Vote for Trump Over Hillary

But my point was that Democrats aren't enthusiastic over Hillary. And I think they won't show up at the polls in the general election and will just sit it out like Republicans did with Romney and McCain.

BUT...if Hillary can turn this Supreme Court fiasco into an urgent need to stop the conservatives...then she could get all the Dems who don't like her to vote for her anyway and show up at the polls.

^^ I agree, Scalia's death will have all sorts of get out the vote ramifications.

Been reading some quotes by this guy. I knew he was a piece of shit, but I really had no idea of the depths which the scat runneth. The world is a better place without him, and our country will be better with more old, backwards thinking jerkoffs like him dying.

Oh, you can bet there will be shenanigans.

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama - POLITICO

Republicans are sweating their motherfucking balls off about the possibly losing majority in the Supreme Court. They will NOT let this go, even if it meant their heads would drop off and with their necks spurting blood on the Senate floor.

They never learn that these stunts dig them deeper into the nice big hole they've created for themselves with all of the blatant obstructionism in the past few years.

I can't wait for the republican congress to prevent Obama nominating a replacement Supreme Court justice. So the president sanders can then place Obama into the Supreme Court where he can rule the next 30 years

First if Obama was going to kill him why wait til he had 11 months left. Supreme Court justices don't have to disclose health records. It turns out he was a sick man with heart problems and high blood pressure. His doctor said he was too sick to have surgery on a shoulder he injured recently and he was 79 fucking years old.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh gfy gold, this is

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Frist, RIP.

Next, this is going to probably be another great test of Obama. The supreme court MUST have 9 judges, and Obama HAS to get someone in there. Of course no matter who he nominates will be blocked by McConnel. But if Obama could do it, wow - it will be the icing on his cake.

I'll go otr right now and claim BO will appoint the replacement, that person will be approved. It would be political suicide for either party to stretch the process out over a year and during the race for Potus.

LOL at every person here that thinks supreme court politics is going to swing the swing vote. its not. swing voters are relatively apolitical. some poll just said like 30% of public dont even know who scalia is. thats what im talking about.

people will show up to pick the president, not who is going to be in SCOTUS. if its hilary, the dems have no shot. with both parties voting for outsiders, hilary is done. & with bernie, a little bit better shot. but not too much. sanders looks like a pussy next to grizzly bear trump. That matters.

:2 cents:

obama will appoint someone, just because he can. & the senate will decline anything to the left of scalia, because they can. i predict it will stalemate & will be a secondary issue in the fall since the media wont be able to talk about it daily. Rachel maddow will, but thats about it.

i believe the stock market & the state of ISIS this fall will be big winds that blow the sails in whichever direction we wind up going. Should ISIS fall & the markets stabilize, advantage dems, except for hilary.

:2 cents: