What Are The Implications Of Scalia's Death

Why pander to the nut cases?

 

Don't think I was pandering...looking for conversation regarding how US gov treats/reacts to death of high ranking officials, and what the repercussions of his death would mean to the current situation...it is an election year, so surely, this guys death will have ramifications.
I heard that Bama would replace buddy with a Dem, which seems unfair- as Scalia was Republican...A Supreme Court heavy with Dems, would cause a lot of freedoms issues. Just guessing on that, and simply looking for intellectual discussion...minus the intellect on my part.

 

It is an election year, but look the candidates are more interested in getting elected than choosing a possible Supreme Cort judge. Voters don't really care much about that. So, they will stay focused on getting elected. Then, if elected, one of them may have to worry about choosing a replacement for Scalia.

The GOP will likely fight tooth and nail to block any potential replacement selected by Obama, and they can likely pull that off until after the election.

Replacing Scalia with a liberal leaning judge...Them's the breaks. One of the prime plums of being a sitting President is being able to choose a supreme court justice, as it makes for leaving a nice lasting legacy, and does not happen often.

 

I didn't mean you Poppy. Yes, his death will have repercussions, but that's life. People die. I don't see going to all the trouble of autopsying all public officials that pass in office just to quiet the nut cases. They'll just claim the autopsy was somehow compromised. The Alex Jones' of the world will always see a conspiracy under every rock. It seems like we're just getting more of them also. Hell, try finding real history on the History Channel, seems like 60% of their programming consists of Ancient Aliens now.

 

So, Ilhawk, which were the other judges that Poindexter bought off? Where are their free trips?


Regardless it isn't right. What is the point?

 

That's not what I was referring to. Actually, I was ignoring it.

 

The point is that there are 9 justices and 4 of those justices have to agree to hear a case. Poindexter did not have to buy off just one judge...He had to buy off 6! So, who are the 5 others????

If this was truly a scandal, you would think that the sensationalist media would be scrambling to find out who those other 5 justices are...Rather than focusing on the one dead one who cannot defend himself.

Since the votes as to whether or not to hear a case are anonymous. All of the media hysteria about impropriety, is just that media hysteria to attract readers/viewers. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, only baseless media speculation by those who have little idea as to how the system works.

Finally, since the Supreme Court hears roughly 0.01% of the writs presented to it. The odds are greatly in Poindexter's favor that the his company's case would not be heard without him spending a cent.

 

And it's still not right and neither you nor I know about other influence. So?

 

How is it "not right"? If there was no quid pro quo, then it is "right"...It might look like there may have been some sort of impropriety...But, it is "right."

We do know that 4 of the, then 9, Justices have to agree to hear the case. So, buying off just one Justice gets you nowhere, nor does it greatly improve the, already very small, chance of the case being heard. There has to be more to this "conspiracy" than just Scalia.

 

I've not said anything about a conspiracy. Also, one doesn't have to buy out all judges, only the vote needed to "win".

 

There is no "only the vote"...You need to buy off 6 votes so that the case, with certainty, is not heard.

Hence, it has to be a "conspiracy".

 

The case: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/14-20616/14-20616-2015-05-06.html

The denial of writ of certiorari: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100515zor_4f15.pdf
The denials of Writs begins on page 9...You have to scroll down to page 40 to find it - look for
15-150 HINGA, JAMES V. MIC GROUP, LLC
and there is still another 30 + pages of denials to go till you reach the end.

 

There is an agreement (dating from the sixties) that a president will not try to appoint someone at Scotus in his last year as president and will give the appointment to his successor .

 

More of LJAd's usual BS...Since there was no "agreement".

LJAd is confusing the matter of Lyndon B Johnson and the appointment of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice. So, no one was being appointed to the Supreme Court, only to fill the position of Chief Justice.

 

Who is talking BS ? Haha

Never heard of the Thurmond Rule ? Of course not .


No judicial nominees are confirmed in the months leading up to an election .

Haha .

Of course, listening to the Obama Broadcasting Corporarion ,alias CNN, is not giving useful information .

 

Ha Ha...Your talking BS.

Abe Fortas was already appointed to the Court in 1965.

Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha.

If you knew anything about the rule, you would know that there is no rule.

The only times the "rule" seems to exist is when the opposition party is in control of Congress and seeks to block any lifetime judicial appointment...The "suddenly" the rule exists.

But when the President's party is in control of Congress, the so-called "rule" disappears.

Muhwah Ha Ha Ha Ha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M

 

The old tactic of ,if being defeated, avoiding the subject and doing blahblah about something different : even the Propaganda Staffel of Obama (here : the NYT) is talking about The Thurmond Rule .

 

Wrong : your knowledge of US politics is lacking (you are listening to much to the OBC) : a democratic control of Congress does not mean that the democratic president has carte blanche, neither is it that when the opposition is controlling congress the president can not make lifetime judicial appointments : there are 54 Republicans in the senate;that does not mean that Maobama will not succeed: there are at least 4 RINOS that are willing (blackmailed? ) to vote for a liberal in Scotus .

 

There you go with the straw men again. Or do you just not understand English.