About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

The Court and the Jesters
Author: BobR    Date: 2016-02-17 11:50:49

Here at FourFreedomsBlog, we try to be topical when possible. Sometimes, though, a big story occurs and it's only several days later that a writer gets a chance to post some thoughts. Such is the case of the surprise passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. We got the news this past Saturday, and it is now 4 days since that political bombshell detonated all over the cable programs. In this case, though, sometimes a little distance is a good thing, as it allows the knee-jerk reactions to bubble up and form a scum on the surface.

With only a couple hours passed after the story hit the cable news stations, Republican lawmakers were proclaiming that they would not vote on any nominee put forth by President Obama. They weren't complaining about any particular nominee, they weren't saying they wouldn't confirm any nominee, they literally said they wouldn't vote on it. That, of course, is abdicating their responsibility, as well as subverting the intention of the Constitution they all claim to hold so dear, but hey - politics always matter more to them.

Once the dust settled a little, there was some back-peddling. They changed their tune to say that what with it being an election year, it would be best to wait until after the next president is seated so the "voters can have a say". Never mind that won't be for another 11 months, nor that the voters DID have a say in 2012 when President Obama was re-elected. Also never mind that the exact same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was president, and Justice Kennedy (who is still on the court) was quickly voted on and confirmed. Marco Rubio just doesn't care - he thinks he's going to be the next president and wants to be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement.

Along with the political "making up the rules as they go along" from the Republican politicians, there are also the stupid conspiracy theories swirling around the death of Scalia, like a floater in the toilet that doesn't want to get flushed down. There was no autopsy (his family refused it), he was getting embalmed before being shipped back to DC (per state law in TX), the cause of death was changed and no doctor directly examined his body! Oh Em Gee! Never mind that - as a private person - his poor health was not widely known. There's also been talk of a suspicious pillow. Some say...

The reality is that the Republicans are in a damned-if-they-do-and-damned-if-they-don't situation. They don't want to give President Obama the opportunity to appoint a 3rd SCOTUS justice because - well... it's President Obama. It seems obvious he would choose a centrist to ensure an easy vote, but it doesn't matter. The nominee will be accused of being "the most liberal appointment ever". They do NOT want to vote for ANY nominee while there are still primaries going on.

However, if they still manage to stall this until next January, there are two problems to contend with:

1) The next president will likely be a Dem, and will likely pick someone even more left-leaning than Obama would (perhaps even Obama himself).

2) With the absence of Scalia, the court balance is now already shifted more to the left. On issues where he would be the 5th vote, there will now be a tie, leaving any lower court decision to stand as-is. That will favor the left, as most of the cases on the docket were appeals by the right after the left won in the lower courts. Of course - the ruling (or - more accurately - lack of ruling) will only apply to the cases at hand, and set no precedent (and can be re-appealed later on when the court is at full-strength). Nonetheless, it does the Republicans no favor to have these cases handled this way.

The reality that they have yet to face is that they are no longer a majority in this nation. They've taken over the House due to gerrymandering (which is slowly getting undone by the courts), but their hold on the Senate is tenuous at best, and they have not been able to put forward any statesmen for presidential races in years. Whatever draconian legislation they can put into law will be tossed by the SCOTUS for years to come. They have become victims of their own nastiness, rigidity, and inability to stand up to the most extreme in their own party. They have transparently pursued politics over governance. Their supporters are getting older and dying off, and the younger voters are not buying their bullshit.

Instead, we are looking at years of enlightened rulings by a court that will consider the rights and plights of the individual against a theocratic and plutocratic power base that has lost its power. It's a new day in America.
 

17 comments (Latest Comment: 02/17/2016 16:59:12 by wickedpam)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by trojanrabbit on 02/17/2016 13:44:11
Morning

Comment by BobR on 02/17/2016 13:59:22
I know it's Wednesday, but it sure feels like Monday...

Comment by wickedpam on 02/17/2016 13:59:25
Morning

If they do manager to stall for that long, they also run the risk of truly pissing off everyone on the left and it might get people off their butts to vote also.

Comment by BobR on 02/17/2016 14:10:05
Quote by wickedpam:
Morning

If they do manager to stall for that long, they also run the risk of truly pissing off everyone on the left and it might get people off their butts to vote also.

Absolutely - some people not inspired to vote for the Dem candidate that wins the nomination might be more inspired to keep a Republican from picking Scalia's replacement

Comment by Raine on 02/17/2016 14:10:42
Good Morning!

This was an amazing op Ed in the NYT today.

Donald Trump’s Secret? Channeling Andrew Jackson

By STEVE INSKEEP

Comment by Raine on 02/17/2016 14:22:33
and then there is this tripe from the NAtional REview. Goes right to what was discussed in the blog today.
Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Senator Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the Court for the time being. Such diplomacy would go a long way to prevent — or at least reduce — further polarization and meanness in our politics. Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he’ll pick a liberal whom he’ll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote. He’ll also probably pick a minority, making it that much easier for supporters such as Staples to paint opposition as bigotry.


Comment by BobR on 02/17/2016 14:27:00
Quote by Raine:
and then there is this tripe from the NAtional REview. Goes right to what was discussed in the blog today.
Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Senator Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the Court for the time being. Such diplomacy would go a long way to prevent — or at least reduce — further polarization and meanness in our politics. Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he’ll pick a liberal whom he’ll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote. He’ll also probably pick a minority, making it that much easier for supporters such as Staples to paint opposition as bigotry.

Ted Cruz?
And where do these strict "constitutionalists" get the notion that it's possible to appoint a SCOTUS justice "who would serve only until the end of the following session"?

Comment by trojanrabbit on 02/17/2016 14:28:34
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Raine:
and then there is this tripe from the NAtional REview. Goes right to what was discussed in the blog today.
Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say that he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Senator Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the Court for the time being. Such diplomacy would go a long way to prevent — or at least reduce — further polarization and meanness in our politics. Chances Obama will go this route? Zero. Instead he’ll pick a liberal whom he’ll call a moderate and insist on an up-or-down vote. He’ll also probably pick a minority, making it that much easier for supporters such as Staples to paint opposition as bigotry.

Ted Cruz?
And where do these strict "constitutionalists" get the notion that it's possible to appoint a SCOTUS justice "who would serve only until the end of the following session"?

And the chances of that reducing polarization or meanness? Less than zero.

Comment by TriSec on 02/17/2016 14:52:02
Obama should make the appointment and carry on, business as usual. Let the congressional inaction speak for itself. Also, this would abrogate everyone's oath to uphold the constitution, and would be an impeachable offence, IMHO.

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/17/2016 15:07:41
Quote by Raine:
Good Morning!

This was an amazing op Ed in the NYT today.

Donald Trump’s Secret? Channeling Andrew Jackson

By STEVE INSKEEP



Another reason to hate Trump.

Comment by Raine on 02/17/2016 15:26:21
Quote by TriSec:
Obama should make the appointment and carry on, business as usual. Let the congressional inaction speak for itself. Also, this would abrogate everyone's oath to uphold the constitution, and would be an impeachable offence, IMHO.

You know he won't -- not in the man's temperament.

This entire debacle is made wholly and completely out of the paranoia in the GOP.

Comment by Raine on 02/17/2016 15:26:50
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Good Morning!

This was an amazing op Ed in the NYT today.

Donald Trump’s Secret? Channeling Andrew Jackson

By STEVE INSKEEP



Another reason to hate Trump.
I thought you would aprreciate this peice. Really thought provoking, huh?


Comment by BobR on 02/17/2016 15:28:53
Quote by Raine:
Quote by TriSec:
Obama should make the appointment and carry on, business as usual. Let the congressional inaction speak for itself. Also, this would abrogate everyone's oath to uphold the constitution, and would be an impeachable offence, IMHO.

You know he won't -- not in the man's temperament.

This entire debacle is made wholly and completely out of the paranoia in the GOP.

paranoia, sour grapes, and several stages of the grieving process (wrt their political future)

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/17/2016 15:55:14
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Good Morning!

This was an amazing op Ed in the NYT today.

Donald Trump’s Secret? Channeling Andrew Jackson

By STEVE INSKEEP



Another reason to hate Trump.
I thought you would aprreciate this peice. Really thought provoking, huh?



Yeah, it is. I have a deep hatred of the land speculating, slave dealing, Indian hating psychopath who is revered by many as a great president. So, that is why it one more reason for me to hate Trump.

Comment by wickedpam on 02/17/2016 16:03:45
Does anyone else have Kaiser? Not sure why but they are raising our rates 12.93% this year and I'm not really seeing an improvement or better coverage for the money.

Is it just us or are all the ins co back to constantly raising rates?

Comment by Raine on 02/17/2016 16:21:26
Quote by wickedpam:
Does anyone else have Kaiser? Not sure why but they are raising our rates 12.93% this year and I'm not really seeing an improvement or better coverage for the money.

Is it just us or are all the ins co back to constantly raising rates?

You might want to shoot a tweet to Jackie Schectner. She is pretty good with this stuff.

Comment by wickedpam on 02/17/2016 16:59:12
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Does anyone else have Kaiser? Not sure why but they are raising our rates 12.93% this year and I'm not really seeing an improvement or better coverage for the money.

Is it just us or are all the ins co back to constantly raising rates?

You might want to shoot a tweet to Jackie Schectner. She is pretty good with this stuff.



Thanks, good thinking