The U.S. Supreme Court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkDmbnhyxdU

Given recent history, my guess is we'll get a ferocious, theatrical fight over a softy "moderate" who will eventually be confirmed to the equal dismay of conservatives and liberals
otm

reasonable leftists will spend a lot of time explaining to us more emo types why this is the best that can be hopes for so stfu about the problems with the moderate SC nominee, and they'll be right

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Sunday, February 14, 2016 3:08 PM (2 hours ago)

et tu?

'fraid so kev

As mentioned upthread, Cruz's more blatant error is implying that Abe Fortas was nominated for the Court in 1968; he was already on the Court, the nomination was for Chief Justice.

When asked by “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace about Reagan’s late-term appointment, Rubio doubled down on his debate comments.

“It doesn’t really matter what they’ve done, what Reagan did back in ‘87. It was in ‘87 when he nominated him, so obviously it was still earlier in the year. If this was November, October or September of last year where the president had more than a year left in office, then perhaps this would be a different discussion,” Rubio said.

^^^ penetrating legal insight

the definitions section of the constitution clearly specifies "calendar year"

If Obama gets anybody confirmed before November, it will drive turnout down for his party and up for the GOP.

Since Obama knows exactly what he's doing, he will nominate one or more poor brave souls who will march in to get denied vociferously by a bunch of white male myopic cowards, making headlines which will make anybody to the left of Mitch McConnell feel a compulsion to show up to the polls, out of solidarity, morality, patriotism or spite, it doesn't matter.

Alternatively he does nominate somebody "perfectly acceptable" like Sri, the GOP leadership lets the nominee through because they suddenly remember that one move from judo class, and the Republican nominee easily gets every facet of the conservative base motivated around the horrible stakes of allowing the Democrats to continue to stuff the bench with communists and homosexuals and Jews and so on. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee is left arguing for the vital importance of eventually replacing RBG with another aisle-crossing "moderate" and progressives stay home.

I'm 50/50 between the "Obama will deliberately provoke them to encourage turnout in November" reading - which Scotusblog's Goldstein has taken up in his original pick of Watford and his update this evening to Loretta Lynch - and imagining Obama wanting to cement a "legacy." He'd have to consider the worst case: vacancy unfilled and Republicans win in November and Obama is remembered as letting the slot slip through his fingers by trying to work the political angles or something. Even if the odds were very poor of that happening, the negative consequences would be huge. The ideal then might be to nominate someone who could, with some lucky twist of fate, get the nod from the Senate... but who, if they don't, provokes such frustration that it adds to the Dem win in November and specifically helps unseat a few purple-state Republican Senators.

Seven years ago he'd totally go for an "art of the possible" nominee whose record put them right in the window of acceptability to the pre-Tea Party GOP caucus. Today I think he's much more in the Take This And Fuck Yourselves With It camp

From August to November he's going to be beating the drum for the nominee as much as he possibly can, so the "worst case scenario" you mention is not exactly out of his hands, either. Basically I think the idea that he'll nominate anybody the Republicans could remotely be happy with is out of the question; these dopes have made it clear they would like more rope

I'm 50/50 between the "Obama will deliberately provoke them to encourage turnout in November" reading - which Scotusblog's Goldstein has taken up in his original pick of Watford and his update this evening to Loretta Lynch - and imagining Obama wanting to cement a "legacy."

everything we know about how obama makes decisions and acts on them suggests he will do the latter, no?

No way, Tombot otm

Also latter not really incompatible w the former

It's just a matter of how big you wanna gamble. There is a risk of losing everything: nominee doesn't go through, Republicans somehow win in November and get to appoint this slot and probably a couple more. Of course, even the "safe" nominee might not go through, and, as y'all have observed, the "provocative" nominee may reduce the chance of the Republican win. It's kind of a beautiful conundrum, like you would use this as the setup for a novel or a season of the West Wing or something.

I think it's time for a boring white guy that he trusts. How can the senate oppose a white guy??

Alan grayson for sc!

it's too bad we already got 'the hispanic justice' since otherwise nominating a hispanic person would be a pretty cynical political move

What does anyone know about the Sri guy and his legal predilections? He seems the likely replacement pick, but his paper trail is pretty mysterious.

so in the LMGTFY section I found a long list with references which is basically what most clickbait pushers news sites appear to have used to write their "explainers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates#Names_mentioned

I'm going with a black woman under 60, like Loretta Lynch or Kamala Harris. Rope, rope, rope.

Although JUSTICE ECHO HAWK would be pretty much impossible to beat in the amazing real names + titles category

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Echo_Hawk

Kamala Harris is about to be a senator from California, and may want to be president at some point, so she's not going to just throw out her political career. Lynch is more of a possibility, but her confirmation took eons.

"it's too bad we already got 'the hispanic justice' since otherwise nominating a hispanic person would be a pretty cynical political move"

guess what you can have more than one hispanic person

yeah I don't think Harris will want this; I mean she might want it but I think she might want senator more.

Obama's Scalia Replacement The Poll

Well keep in mind guys part of the gambit here is that the first person Obama nominates is going to get filibustered into July

guess what you can have more than one hispanic person

yes I realize there are multiple hispanic people in america, however nominating a hispanic person to the court is no longer in itself a historical event

Remember when nominating an Italian American like Nino was a big deal.

i bet sacco and vanzetti were smiling from heaven rip big men

It's cute how Cruz and Rubio both got their "It's been 80 years" talking point so quickly. Rubio claiming it's 80 years of precedence that Supreme Court appointments are not made during the last year of presidential terms when there haven't actually been any (except for LBJ's Chief Justice nominee). They conveniently selected their 80 year figure because there was an appointment in the last year of Hoover's presidency and one twenty years before with Taft.

Should have gone with "four score" to make it sound extra inviolable.

David Axelrod:

When the shocking news of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing hit Saturday night, my mind raced back to a White House Correspondents Association dinner seven years ago, when we were seated together.

We bantered about my hometown of Chicago, where he had taught law before ascending to the bench. He opined on wine and music and generally lived up to his reputation as a man who told and enjoyed a good story.

And then our conversation took an unexpected turn.

Justice David Souter, Scalia's longtime colleague on the court, had just announced his retirement, creating a vacancy for President Obama to fill. Scalia figured that as senior adviser to the new president, I might have some influence on the decision -- or at least enough to pass along a message.

"I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."

A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again.

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

wow had no idea

and somehow he got the Hamdi case right, right?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42134/antonin-scalia-death-charles-pierce/

and flag burning. And the recent DNA case.

"got"--aren't opinions assigned by the chief

Dissents are not

try again, washface

oh i thought the chef assigned everything my bad

chief

Stevens assigned Hamdi iirc, thinking politically of the impact of a Scalia opinion.

Rehnquist was still on the court for that and Stevens was in dissent anyway

that's what I mean: Stevens was senior justice in dissent, which means he assigns the dissent.

That is not how that works. You write in dissent whenever another justice's opinion doesn't say what you think is important. There's no need to come up with a coherent result when you've lost so dissenters don't collaborate the way a fragile majority might.

The senior justice in dissent assigns the main opinion for the dissent though. The other justices are still free to write their own dissents or concurrences.

It's not policy, it's just been tradition.

The Democrats-started-this-with-Bork line repeated by Republicans is exasperating as fuck. Ads and spokesmen explained what Bork's jurisprudence would have led to: no Brown (although he said he supported the ruling), a constricted view of the 14th Amendment. He got his hearing. His presence on the Court would have altered it and American law; he deserved to be opposed. He got his hearing. He lost 58-42. It wasn't character assassination.

I would read anything describing this tradition with great interest (xp)

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y5cUCl4hSWUC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=senior+justice+in+dissent+assigning+opinion&source=bl&ots=5XrBHiU1I_&sig=7A9V6DFMxq4DHksDcxO1ouhJFKc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihqr7anvrKAhWGPCYKHdnfDQgQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=senior%20justice%20in%20dissent%20assigning%20opinion&f=false

Been away and haven't read all of the posts from the last few days. Has this been discussed--

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts, who in matters entirely internal to the court like this wields some extra power, is known for his concern for institutional prestige, and he would be right to weigh in against issuing opinions based on what Scalia did in past conferences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b