BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died

[American Patriot]

The democraps and Progressives are shitting themselves right now over Cruz. lol

[Ryan Ruck]

Ted Cruz has stated he will filibusterer any nominee.

And I believe him.

[American Patriot]

He has done it before.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hahaha! Lindsay Graham crying all over FNC about how "there will be consequences" for Cruz if he filibusters.

Hey, Lindsay! How's that presidential campaign going!

[vector7]

Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon. . . " McConnell channels Major Strasser. "Of what value is that? You may recall what RINO guarantees have been worth in the past."

"Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us". -- Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Chap. 44, verse 1.)

I learned yesterday afternoon in a spate of panicked phone calls from friends and fellow freedom fighters that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been found dead at a West Texas ranch.
A long-time friend sent along the links with this anguished comment and accompanying verses: "As for me, I can think of no adequate epitaph other than David's lament for Saul and Jonathan."

¹⁷ And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and Jonathan his son, ¹⁸ and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said: “Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!

²⁰ Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.

²¹ “You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew or rain upon you, nor fields of offerings! For there the shield of the mighty was defiled, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.

²² “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.

²³ “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions.

²⁴ “You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you luxuriously in scarlet, who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.

²⁵ “How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! “Jonathan lies slain on your high places.

²⁶ I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.

²⁷ “How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!”

Almost immediately we had this announcement from the spaghetti-spined Mitch McConnell: "No vote on Scalia replacement under Obama." Yeah, right. To paraphrase Ilsa in Casablanca, "Of what value is that? You may recall what RINO guarantees have been worth in the past." Indeed. Does anyone over the age of five believe that McConnell, Ryan and Company won't contrive to sell us out once again?

A friend and long-time DC observer writes:

"The death of Justice Scalia will significantly exacerbate social divisions and conflict, but it is a good thing in the sense that it will ABSOLUTELY resonate with voters--and brings fresh meaning to the notion that one is not only electing a President, one is electing a person who will fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, something I think most people have realized given the age of the Justices. It also demonstrates how fragile some of the recent gains, i.e., in 2nd Amendment are. It is fairly well agreed upon that had Heller come up before a differently composed Supreme Court, the decision could have been different. It seems, by definition, that his death will significantly impact the 2016 Presidential election, regardless of whether Obama nominates a replacement or not. On another level, I believe Justice Scalia's death is a significant movement towards the social chaos that is inevitably going to descend upon the entire population of the United States, because of the reach of the Supreme Court and the notion of a new balance arising within it."

As for me, Scalia's death is merely one more portent of the civil war soon to come.


Obama to Select Scalia Replacement for US Supreme Court as Fear Grips (and Steers) the Hearts of American “Christians”

February 13, 2016 by FireBreathingChristian



The US Supreme Court that imposed “gay marriage” and ObamaCare upon America is about to take a lunging lurch leftward.

With today’s passing of Antonin Scalia, the laughably unfree “land of the free” is almost certain to see a significant slide even further down the rat-hole of DC-down tyranny and the perversion of law. A proud, unrepentant nation that exalts its “freedom” and “liberty” to enjoy “legal” porn, “legal” divorce on demand, “legal” strip clubs in “legal” casinos, “legal” adultery-themed businesses like Ashley Madison, “legal” “gay marriage”, “legal” child sacrifice and, of course, the “legal” right to openly worship any false god one chooses, including Allah and even Satan himself – that “land of the free” is even now experiencing the wrath of God pouring down upon it, as has been the case for generations now. Yet, amazingly, and as a testament to the blindness of the unrepentant, few seem to even recognize what’s going on…and of those who do recognize it, few are yet willing to admit why and repent accordingly.

In blind idolatry of the American State and its advocates, masses of professing Christians in America will predictably and right on cue use this as an occasion not to advance the Gospel-fueled repentance and submission of America to Christ the King as King in practice and in detail where law and civil government are concerned, but instead as another “compelling reason” to advance the cause of the Republican Party….again…

Once again, fear will grip the hearts of these professing evangelicals and fear will motivate them to play the same old games and pursue the same old secular routes to salvation.
Once again, Americans will turn to secular saviors rather than to Christ, the Devil will laugh, and the wrath of God will continue to flow.

News of Scalia’s passing during Obama’s presidency will trigger heart-gripping, chill-inducing fear, and that fear will once again be used by the Pagan Political Right to strengthen its already iron grip over the hearts and minds of millions of professing Christians in America.

Fear, fear, fear…panic, panic, panic…

American Christianity, and thereby American culture, is now dominated and defined by fear of man and fear of the world in direct opposition to the repentance-inspiring, obedience-producing, and life-restoring fear of the Lord that can actually save American lives and culture through the Gospel-fueled Great Commission. (For more on this subject, please read The Fear-Driven Voting of America’s “Conservative Christians” and The Fear-Fueled Politics of American Statism.)

Repent?

Submit?

In the areas of law and civil government?

Nah, we’re way too proud and way too smart for that sort of thing.

We’re America, after all.

We’d much rather be practical and continue to pour our passion, time, talent and treasure into the Republican Party as opposed to taking up our cross for the sake of Christ and His Gospel-fueled Great Commission to repent and obey Him in all things…including law and civil government.

It matters not how clearly God has spoken.

It matters not how plain the Republican record of rank Statism and anti-Christian approaches to law, economics, politics and civil government.

We hear Christ’s crystal clear claim to Lordship over every realm of life, and what is our answer? What is the typical fear-driven, self-centered American evangelical answer to the proposition of Christ as King over us?

Consider the following reaction of record, which so closely (and so painfully) models our own:

He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

~ John 19:14-16

So the next time you’re wondering why this is all happening – why we have “legal” porn, “legal” divorce on demand, “legal” strip clubs in “legal” casinos, “legal” adultery-themed businesses like Ashley Madison, “legal” “gay marriage”, “legal” child sacrifice and the “legal” right to openly worship any false god one chooses, including Allah and even Satan himself – don’t blame Obama or the democrats or MSNBC or the LGBT lobby. Not first, anyway.

It’s American evangelicals who are most responsible for this nightmare…and we need to be lovingly confronted and corrected with that fact.

Limp-wristed Gospels make limp-wristed cultures, wicked leadership is God’s judgment upon us, and judgment begins with the house of the Lord.

http://www.firebreathingchristian.com/archives/12327

[vector7]

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)



UPDATED Sunday 8:48 a.m. The Senate is currently in recess until February 22. The recess began on Friday. Whether this opens an opportunity for a recess appointment depends upon how Senate leaders interpret an adjournment resolution approved last Friday. That will determine whether it will meet for brief activity during the recess, which could close that opportunity.

Analysis

The Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action.

Within a few hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it became abundantly clear that, first, President Obama will choose a possible successor and try to get the Senate to go along, and, second, the GOP leadership of the Senate say they will try to block any such nominee from final approval.

If that does result in an impasse, President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily. The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.

It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court’s history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment. The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly.

The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

The decision was something of a compromise. The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last. The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.

Here, specifically, is what the Court decided:

First, on the president’s side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.

Second, also on the president’s side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.

Third, on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

Suppose President Obama goes ahead with a nomination to the open seat on the Court, and suppose that the Republican-controlled Senate chooses not to allow that nominee. The GOP has enough seats in the Senate to control that scenario.

Suppose, then, that the Senate goes into recess to allow its members who are running for reelection to spend some more time campaigning back home.

Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess? Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action. Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.

In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.

The same situation would likely apply when this year’s Senate session comes to an end, and the senators take a recess before the next Congress assembles.

The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there. The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond.

[vector7]

Barack Obama “Thrilled” Over Justice Scalia’s Death…

Posted on February 14, 2016 by DCWhispers


Word reached the White House hours before formal media announcements were made regarding longtime Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia having been found dead while vacationing at a Texas resort. First the speechwriters were summoned to provide the appropriate tone for Barack Obama’s remarks. During that same time, Obama and Valerie Jarrett were already initiating a long-standing plan for what they viewed as a prime opportunity to make Mr. Obama relevant once again and an opportunity that the President was said to be thrilled to have before him.



The animosity between Justice Scalia and the Obama White House was well known. Scalia considered the Obama administration to be a scourge upon the Constitutional-based tenets of the American form of government. The Obama White House in turn privately viewed Scalia as a legal “dinosaur” who was horribly out of place amidst the ongoing “fundamental transformation” the Obama regime was pushing for the country.

Scalia famously blasted the administration for such critical acts as Obamacare, illegal immigration, states rights, and executive authority.

Now Mr. Obama and his team of trusted advisers, led personally by Valerie Jarrett, are preparing to proceed with their choice to be Justice Scalia’s replacement and intend to bludgeon Republicans should the Republican-controlled Senate refuse to give that appointment the legislative light of day.

Media contacts have been employed, and soon a roll-out campaign will be forthcoming.

It is the very thing Mr. Obama excels most at – highly divisive politics and near-constant self-promotion. He intends to see the balance of power shifted on the Court to more fully express his will and view of what the United States should, and should not be.

War is once again brewing in D.C., and Barack Obama is reportedly thrilled over it.



http://dcwhispers.com/barack-obama-t...scalias-death/

[American Patriot]

Obama had the man killed. If not Clinton did.

[Ryan Ruck]

Scalia Is Said To Have Died Of A Heart Attack

February 14, 2016

Inside the cloistered chambers of the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s days were highly regulated and predictable. He met with clerks, wrote opinions and appeared for arguments in the august courtroom on a schedule set months in advance.

Yet as details of his sudden death trickled in Sunday, it appeared that the hours afterward were anything but orderly. The man known for his elegant legal opinions and profound intellect was found dead in his room at a hunting resort, either by a housekeeper or the ranch owner, according to conflicting accounts.

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy.

“If it had been me . . . I would want to know,” Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Tex., told The Washington Post in an interview Sunday about the chaotic hours after Scalia’s death at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a luxury compound less than an hour from the Mexican border and about 40 miles south of Marfa.

The U.S. Marshals Service has not issued a statement about the events surrounding Scalia’s death Saturday. And as official Washington tried to process what the justice’s death means for politics and the law, some details of his final hours remained opaque.

As late as Sunday afternoon, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy would be performed, though officials later said Scalia’s body was being embalmed and there would be no autopsy. One report, by WFAA-TV in Dallas, said the death certificate would show the cause of the death was a heart attack.

One thing was clear: Scalia had died in his element, doing what he loved at the ranch that has played host to movie stars and European royalty and is famous for bird hunts and bigger game, such as bison and mountain lions.

“Other than being with his family or in church, there’s no place he’d rather be than on a hunt,” said Houston lawyer Mark Lanier, who accompanied Scalia on hunting trips seeking wild boar, deer and even alligators. Lanier said he first learned of Scalia’s love for hunting through former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “He’ll do anything if you take him hunting,” Lanier recalled O’Connor saying.

Although it is uncertain whether Scalia went hunting on this particular trip to Cibolo Creek, law enforcement officials said he arrived Friday and attended a party that night with about 40 people. Scalia left the festivities early to go to bed, said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not an authorized representative. It was unclear whether Scalia was not feeling well at the time.

Scalia did not appear for breakfast with others from the party, officials said; people at first thought he might be sleeping in, but they eventually grew concerned. A housekeeper found the body, according to Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara; other witnesses said the housekeeper opened Scalia’s door at the request of the ranch owner.

After emergency personnel and officials from the U.S. Marshals Service were called to the scene, two local judges who also serve as justices of the peace were called, Guevara said in an interview Sunday. Both were out of town, she said — not unusual in a remote region where municipalities are spread far apart.

Guevara also was out of town, but she said she declared Scalia dead based on information provided by officials at the scene, citing Texas laws that allow a justice of the peace to declare someone dead without seeing the body.

Guevara declined to comment further to The Post, but told WFAA that Scalia’s death certificate would list myocardial infarction — a heart attack — as the official cause of death.

She told the station that she planned to drive to the ranch but changed her mind when a U.S. marshal told her by phone: “It’s not necessary for you to come, judge. If you’re asking for an autopsy, that’s what we need to clarify.”

Guevara said she asked the Marshals whether there were “any signs of foul play. And they said, ‘Absolutely not,’ ” she told the station. After talking with Scalia’s personal physician, she said, she pronounced him dead and declined to order an inquest.

Scalia’s body was taken to Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso by a procession of about 20 law enforcement officers. It arrived there about 2:30 a.m. Sunday, according to Chris Lujan, a manager for the funeral home. The funeral home is about 31/2 hours from the ranch where Scalia died.

Lujan said that Scalia’s family did not request an autopsy and that the body is being prepared for the funeral and will be transported back to Washington on Monday. It is under guard by six law enforcement officials, including U.S. marshals and Texas state troopers, Lujan said.

“An autopsy was declined at about 3:30 a.m.,” Lujan said. “The justice of the peace said there was no indication of foul play and that he died in his sleep from natural causes.”

Funeral arrangements for Scalia were unclear Sunday.

I want to believe an overweight 79 year old man having a heart attack is a perfectly reasonable thing to happen but in this environment, I just can't get rid of that seed of doubt.

[vector7]

[INDENT]
Scalia Is Said To Have Died Of A Heart Attack

When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ummm...

Cibolo Creek Ranch Owner Recalls Scalia’s Last Hours In Texas

February 14, 2016

A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner.

Just hours later, he would be found dead of apparent natural causes, which media outlets reported on Sunday was a heart attack.

"He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, 'it's been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep," recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch.

When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

"He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.

Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.

"Ultimately they became available and handled it superbly. They flew in by helicopter. They told me to secure the ranch, which I did until this morning," he said.

Scalia was just the latest newsworthy guest to visit the celebrity hideaway that covers 30,000 acres near the Chinati Mountains. Mick Jagger, Julia Roberts and Tommy Lee Jones have also partaken of its scenic vistas and luxury accomodations.

Established in 1857 by Milton Faver, known as the first Texas cattle baron west of the Pecos, the ranch retains 19th Century constructions, including "El Fortin de Cibolo," a primitive fort designed to protect settlers from Apaches.

In a special guest package offered last month, rooms went for $545 to $565 a night for two people, with a meal package and ranch tour included. Other activities include hiking, horseback riding, bird-watching and ATV tours.

Scalia, who was scheduled to return to Washington on Sunday, had little time to avail himself of the ranch's offerings. Poindexter said he had only met Scalia once before briefly, in Washington. Scalia came to the ranch because he was friends another guest.

Poindexter said he knew the other guests.

"All the guests were friends of mine, I paid for all of them. There were no politics, no jurisprudence in the slightest," he said.

"This was strictly a group of friends that the judge decided to join. He was coming with his son who had to drop out for reasons I don't' know.

"It was an honor to have him. He was widely admired. There were no speeches. He wasn't asked any hard questions, it was all about the outdoors and Texas, and what it's like to being a Supreme Court Justice," he said.

Scalia's personal financial disclosures show no previous trips to the ranch. The disclosures, posted on OpenSecret.Org show that the justice made several trips to Texas since 2005 to speak at colleges and universities, including St. Mary's University in 2008.

Poindexter, 71, said Scalia's sudden death was both a "personal tragedy" for those at the ranch, and for the nation.

"All of us here saw him as a stalwart defender of our way of life in Texas, in a real sense," he said.

"It's a great loss. Having made that statement, if it was his time to go, he was surrounded by friends, in fairly nice setting, with a full tummy too. He said he was very happy to be invited so it could have been in worse circumstances," he said.

"It's caused all of us here to stop and think about life, how precious it is, and how it is so unexpectedly lost," he added.

The body of the Supreme Court justice was moved to an El Paso funeral home early Sunday.

The body was driven from Marfa and arrived around 2:30 a.m. at Sunset Funeral Homes, according to spokesman Chris Lujan.

Lujan said the funeral home was chosen by family of the justice, and at the advice of a family friend.

The El Paso County medical examiner's office said they hadn't received any infomration regarding the possibility of performing an autopsy.

[vector7]

Not good...

Suspicious Deaths During The Obama Administration

[Ryan Ruck]

From SCOTUSblog...

How The Politics Of The Next Nomination Will Play Out

February 14, 2016

This post substantially revises and supersedes my earlier one on how the political parties will likely approach the Scalia vacancy, in which I had concluded that Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford was the most likely nominee. On reflection, I think that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is more likely. I also think that the Republicans will eventually permit the nomination to proceed on the merits and reject it on party lines.

In thinking about how to respond to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the administration has two priorities. First, fill the Scalia seat by getting a nominee confirmed. The stakes could not be higher: the appointment could flip the Supreme Court’s ideological balance for decades. Second, gain as much political benefit as possible and exact as heavy a political toll as possible on Republicans, particularly in the presidential election. Precisely because of the seat’s importance, this is the rare time that a material number of voters may seriously think about the Court in deciding whether to vote at all and who to vote for.

Those priorities reinforce each other. The Republican Senate leadership has staked out the position that no nomination by President Obama will move forward. Because Republicans hold the Senate majority, they have the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and/or a floor vote on the nominee. So, any effort to replace Scalia is dead on arrival unless the political dynamic in the country forces Republicans to change their minds and allow the nomination to proceed.

Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance. To take just one example, Ted Cruz is exactly right to say that a more liberal replacement for Justice Scalia is very likely to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of a Second Amendment right to possess firearms or at least render it a nullity as a practical matter. There are dozens of other examples. Conversely, a Republican appointee would not only preserve those victories but continue the Court’s steady move to the right.

In addition, blocking President Obama’s nominee is good politics for important subsets of Republicans. Most directly, the Supreme Court is a signal issue for the conservative Republican base in a way that it is not for core Democratic constituencies. Since at least Richard Nixon, conservatives have effectively rallied against the Supreme Court as a liberal institution that is out of control. We see that dynamic today in Republican candidates’ remarkable attempt to frame even Chief Justice Roberts as a failure, based on his votes to uphold the Affordable Care Act and the administration’s implementation of the Act.

Those competing priorities put the political parties in a deadly embrace from which neither will easily budge. The administration feels a constitutional responsibility to press for the confirmation of a nominee and every political advantage in doing so. Republicans cannot accede to that effort because their base will not permit it.

In all of this, it is impossible to overstate the importance of Ted Cruz, who will make the appointment a central issue in the campaign and who will drive enormous pressure against proceeding with any nomination. That pressure is likely to be too great for the Republican Senate leadership to overcome, even if it concludes that it would be better politics to do so.

Cruz is extremely sophisticated regarding these issues both legally and politically. He understands the stakes perfectly and is a thought leader among Republicans regarding the Court. He immediately understands the value to his own personal candidacy – and he would say, to Republican prospects in the general election – in taking the hardest possible line against permitting President Obama to replace Scalia.

On some level, this is a reprise of Cruz’s filibuster that shut down the government in an effort to rally conservatives in support of defunding the Affordable Care Act. The filibuster motivated the Republican base and dramatically raised Cruz’s own personal profile. But the general consensus is that it hurt the Republican brand overall among independent voters.

All that said, I do think that an Obama administration nominee may in fact receive a vote. As Amy described in an earlier post, there is no genuine precedent for refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination because of an impending presidential election. Senate Republicans’ current contrary position invites the administration to put them in a very difficult political position in which there is substantial pressure from important blocs of voters to act on the nomination.

As a result, I think that the most likely scenario is that if Republicans can come up with even a slender substantive thread on which to base an objection to the nominee, they will seize on it and vote the nominee down on the merits. For example, Danielle Gray, an exceptionally qualified black woman lawyer who served in the Obama administration, would be voted down on the ground that she was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act. Avril Haines, a widely respected female lawyer who is the current Deputy National Security Advisor, would be voted down on the ground that she was CIA Deputy Director during a controversy over the CIA hacking into Senate computers.

If the nominee presents a potential substantive ground for objection that they public could take seriously as genuine – even if it seems wrongheaded – I think that Senate Republicans will permit a vote, and reject the nominee. The nomination would be slow-walked, including with numerous requests for information. Eventually either a filibuster would be withdrawn or overcome, with Senate Republicans voting essentially as a block. Any other course than a decisive vote against the nominee invites a certain primary challenge from conservatives in the next election.

So given the dynamic, how does each side proceed? The administration can pick a nominee who fulfills both its jurisprudential and political goals, without giving Republicans a tool with which to fight back to persuade undecided voters. Dozens of nominees fit the ideological bill of being sufficiently progressive and changing the Court’s ideological balance if confirmed. The more interesting question for the administration will be which one creates the greatest political benefit and exacts the greatest political costs for Republicans in the general election.

Democrats have two political priorities: motivating turn-out by their own voters and persuading independents to vote for the Democratic nominee. Two Democratic constituencies in particular vote in disproportionately low numbers: young Democrats and minorities.

The youth vote makes little difference here because the age range for a serious nominee (roughly, forty-five to fifty-two) does not directly touch that constituency. There are specific potential nominees who would motivate young liberal voters – Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example. But those nominees are the ones who would give Republicans the opportunity to hold hearings and reject the appointment on an up-or-down vote without serious cost.

Minority voters are a different matter. Traditionally, black and Hispanic turn-out has trailed white turn-out. In the 2004 election, the percentages were white 67.2%, black 60.0%, and Hispanic 47.2%. In 2008, they were white 66.1%, black 64.7%, and Hispanic 49.9%. The 2012 election was the first in which the proportion of black turn-out exceeded that of whites. The percentages were white 64.1%, black 66.2%, and Hispanic 48.0%.

Overall, in 2012, the white proportion of the voting population decreased to 71.1% and the minority proportion increased to 28.9% (22.8% black and Hispanic). For that reason, many attribute President Obama’s reelection to minority turn-out.

The best candidate politically would probably be Hispanic. Hispanic voters both (a) are more politically independent than black voters and therefore more in play in the election, and (b) historically vote in low numbers. In that sense, the ideal nominee from the administration’s perspective in these circumstances is already on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina.

On the other hand, I think the President personally will be very tempted to appoint a black Justice to the Court, rather than a second Hispanic. His historical legacy rests materially on advancing black participation and success in American politics. The role Thurgood Marshall previously played in that effort is inescapable. The President likely sees value in providing a counterpoint to the Court’s only black Justice, the very conservative Clarence Thomas.

For those reasons, I think the President will pick a black nominee. I’ve long said that the most likely candidate for the next Democratic appointment was California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is fifty-one. A female nominee has significant advantages as well. That is particularly true for the candidacy of the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. For reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think her nomination is difficult to oppose ideologically, given her history as a prosecutor.

If Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.

But Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. At some point in the process, she likely would have to recuse from her current position, but the Department of Justice could proceed to function with an acting head. Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal.

Perhaps Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle.

The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

Other black women have been mentioned as possible candidates. For example, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is well known as a former lawyer in the Obama administration, but at thirty-nine probably too young. I also discussed Danielle Gray above. She is widely admired, but lacks the stature of the attorney general.

Two other potential white female nominees are likely to get close looks. Judge Jane Kelly is a young Obama appointee to the Eighth Circuit who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco is even younger at forty-seven.

In a previous version of this post I pointed to Paul Watford, an Obama appointee to the Ninth Circuit, as the most likely nominee. Watford is in his late forties. He is well respected and reasonably well known in Democratic legal circles. I still think he is a serious candidate, but the fact that Lynch is a woman gives her nomination a very significant advantage. The same goes for two well-respected appellate judges who are black, the Second Circuit’s Ray Lohier and the D.C. Circuit’s Robert Wilkins.

The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.

So while I will update my research on potential nominees, at this point I think that Attorney General Lynch is the most likely candidate. I think the administration is likely to nominate her, that the Senate will initially refuse to proceed with the nomination but ultimately accede after delaying the process significantly, and then vote her down on party lines. At that point, Republicans will slow-walk a follow-up nominee and claim that it is too close to the election to act on the candidate.

[American Patriot]

Its time for some "bad politics" if you ask me.

Stop any nominee from taking that office until we oust these maggots.

[Phil Fiord]

I had a bad feeling about the passing of Scalia. One could argue, he was older and therefore more likely to pass. That is all fine, but those in higher levels of government do get great healthcare. I have seen nothing to suggest Scalia had heart troubles and then the report of the pillow on his head. Now, I have put a pillow over my head before to block out noise, but I did not keep it there and addressed the noise issue directly.

Who benefits? Take your pick. Hillary is a possible, but right now less likely candidate for a hit order. Obama and those running him do get an advantage with the death.

[American Patriot]

The Left benefits greatly.

The thing is, Obama can pick whomever he likes, but it is supposed to go through confirmation process. With a Republican House and Senate he has little chance of geting through anyone they don't like. Except for the bullshitting going on all the time in Congress. And someone will crack eventually. And we'll get a Libtard the likes of the world has never seen yet.

We still have just under a full year of Obama's BS

[American Patriot]

Home Archives Video Cartoons About Search Login More

« Did We Just See A Trump-Killer Moment? | Sanders supporters discovering superdelegates rigged against them »

Share |
Twitter |
Facebook | 1245 Comments | Print |
Email
February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

By Thomas Lifson

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer

Hat tip: Instapundit

[Ryan Ruck]

I saw that last night. LOL!

Hope the Repubs start bringing this up and throwing it in their faces.

[Phil Fiord]

They can bring it up, but as we have seen for years, this President does not follow the law.

[Ryan Ruck]