Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

[jk]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

It's unfortunate. We saw this here with the climate change discussion. There is zero doubt it's happening and zero doubt it's less than an excellent outcome for humanity but the political zealots killed the argument before we could begin to talk about solutions. It's a complex issue and those that only see issues through a political mirror make these discussions impossible.

it would be possible to start a thread titled "FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS ONLY" in which such discussions could be held, with an agreement in the first post that denial posts WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO, but ignored. if a believer went astray and was drawn into the denial debate, that person could be reminded of the thread's rules. i think that might work. i'd be interested in your thoughts on the climate change topic. i don't know that i have much to contribute, but i'd participate in such a thread.

it is interesting to note, however, that the need for such rules in such a thread is testimony to the terrible polarization of our society. otoh, i wonder if the oil drum in fact functioned in essence as a community of climate change believers- i only visited that site a couple of times so am not familiar enough with it to know.

in similar fashion, one might start a thread on "political CONSEQUENCES of scalia's death" in which participants would forswear discussion of the moral/ethical/historical legitimacy of political actions. i.e. no discussion of whether mcconnell is 'right' or 'justified' in taking the position he does, but just discussion of how the political process is unfolding and how it might continue to unfold in the future, with special attention to any economic/financial consequences down the road. again, anyone who strayed from the thread's 'rules' would just get a reminder and would otherwise be IGNORED.

such threads might also have the benefit of helping us all learn to be less emotionally reactive to all these issues.

[shiny!]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

it would be possible to start a thread titled "FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS ONLY" in which such discussions could be held, with an agreement in the first post that denial posts WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO, but ignored. if a believer went astray and was drawn into the denial debate, that person could be reminded of the thread's rules. i think that might work. i'd be interested in your thoughts on the climate change topic. i don't know that i have much to contribute, but i'd participate in such a thread.

it is interesting to note, however, that the need for such rules in such a thread is testimony to the terrible polarization of our society. otoh, i wonder if the oil drum in fact functioned in essence as a community of climate change believers- i only visited that site a couple of times so am not familiar enough with it to know.

in similar fashion, one might start a thread on "political CONSEQUENCES of scalia's death" in which participants would forswear discussion of the moral/ethical/historical legitimacy of political actions. i.e. no discussion of whether mcconnell is 'right' or 'justified' in taking the position he does, but just discussion of how the political process is unfolding and how it might continue to unfold in the future, with special attention to any economic/financial consequences down the road. again, anyone who strayed from the thread's 'rules' would just get a reminder and would otherwise be IGNORED.

such threads might also have the benefit of helping us all learn to be less emotionally reactive to all these issues.

I'd support such threads, jk. Why not start them? I'll help by making a thread in the Rant and Rave section for left/right political cartoons and propaganda drive-bys. When people insist on posting partisan political cr*p we can flag those posts and ask one of the FREDs to move them to that thread. Then pray that EJ doesn't decide it's too much work to keep politics out of this forum and shut the whole place down.

PS: Aside from being interesting (to me, anyway) the reason I posted those interviews with Scalia were to show how civil people listen to each other and thoughtfully discuss their deep philosophical differences.

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Shiny,

It's difficult to see how politics can be avoided when dealing with the replacement of a major Supreme Court justice on a closely divided court. The first dozen posts were all Democrat leans. Does bringing up articles showing one party did exactly what they are accusing the other of now doing politics or statements of fact.

We should all agree to keep politics out of the forums as much as possible but with this topic it would have been impossible.

Your contributions are top notch and much appreciated.

[shiny!]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Shiny,

It's difficult to see how politics can be avoided when dealing with the replacement of a major Supreme Court justice on a closely divided court. The first dozen posts were all Democrat leans. Does bringing up articles showing one party did exactly what they are accusing the other of now doing politics or statements of fact.

We should all agree to keep politics out of the forums as much as possible but with this topic it would have been impossible.

Your contributions are top notch and much appreciated.

Yes, we all know the "other side" is just as bad and hypocricy abounds. I don't need to see post after post about it. We were discussing Antonin Scalia's legacy, then political posters started slinging partisan politics into the conversation. Can't you see the difference?

[shiny!]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Made a new thread in the Political Abyss of Rant and Rave:

Left/Right Politics, Cartoons & Propaganda Bin

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/antonin-scalias-funeral-will-reflect-a-life-of-faith/2016/02/20/2c12290c-d778-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1 _na

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...eatest-quotes/

[shiny!]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/antonin-scalias-funeral-will-reflect-a-life-of-faith/2016/02/20/2c12290c-d778-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1 _na

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...eatest-quotes/

Thanks, vt! I love good quotes.

[santafe2]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Scalia's death prompts Dow to settle suits for $835 million

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-case-for-835m

[jk]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Scalia's death prompts Dow to settle suits for $835 million

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-case-for-835m

realistic. they were likely to get a 4-4 decision, which leaves standing the lower court decision.

[santafe2]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

it would be possible to start a thread titled "FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS ONLY" in which such discussions could be held, with an agreement in the first post that denial posts WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO, but ignored. if a believer went astray and was drawn into the denial debate, that person could be reminded of the thread's rules. i think that might work. i'd be interested in your thoughts on the climate change topic. i don't know that i have much to contribute, but i'd participate in such a thread.

jk, when I began working in the solar energy industry I thought solar and wind could become a large part of our energy equation and through the use of this more thermally efficient energy source we could solve our issue with what is now clearly a warming earth.

What I understand now is that while solar energy and electric cars are much more efficient, all these and other efficiency improvements are doing is delaying the day humans will have to address our dependence on exponential economic growth. We can't get out of the box we're in by increasing efficiency in energy use. There are limits to efficiency.

Let's assume human population levels off in 2 more generations at about 10B people. Let's also assume we wring out an additional 1% in energy efficiency per capita every year for the next 40 years and pair that with an average 2% GDP growth.

With this combination of population growth, GDP growth and energy efficiency growth, we'll be using twice as much energy in 40 years as we use today. I don't see how that is feasible and that's the problem I'd like to better understand.

[jk]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

jk, when I began working in the solar energy industry I thought solar and wind could become a large part of our energy equation and through the use of this more thermally efficient energy source we could solve our issue with what is now clearly a warming earth.

What I understand now is that while solar energy and electric cars are much more efficient, all these and other efficiency improvements are doing is delaying the day humans will have to address our dependence on exponential economic growth. We can't get out of the box we're in by increasing efficiency in energy use. There are limits to efficiency.

Let's assume human population levels off in 2 more generations at about 10B people. Let's also assume we wring out an additional 1% in energy efficiency per capita every year for the next 40 years and pair that with an average 2% GDP growth.

With this combination of population growth, GDP growth and energy efficiency growth, we'll be using twice as much energy in 40 years as we use today. I don't see how that is feasible and that's the problem I'd like to better understand.

some incoherent and scattershot reactions to your post:

when you say that that is not feasible, what do you mean? that there won't be enough energy? that global temperatures will rise beyond some defined point? are you assuming energy use grows with gdp and/or with population? does the composition of gdp matter? with services and technology increasing in their share of gdp, the processing of material goods diminishes.

i just pulled up some charts of u.s. energy consumption per capita: it is roughly equal to that in the late 1960's. of course population is much larger now.

re growth- i think growth becomes less material as economies develop. if pieces of silicon can be major contributors to gdp it has very different environmental and energy-demand implications that if we generate that same bit of gdp by producing steel. is it possible that growth can continue but its energy content decline rapidly? but this ignores the problem of all the 3rd world people who want 1st world lifestyles.

getting back to your original point, why is the increased energy demand that you predict a problem? for example, is it because - in this country at least - we've taken nuclear off the table? or is it the heat generated? please specify why the energy demand you forecast isn't "feasible" and in what way that's a "problem."

[santafe2]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

some incoherent and scattershot reactions to your post:

when you say that that is not feasible, what do you mean? that there won't be enough energy? that global temperatures will rise beyond some defined point? are you assuming energy use grows with gdp and/or with population? does the composition of gdp matter? with services and technology increasing in their share of gdp, the processing of material goods diminishes.

i just pulled up some charts of u.s. energy consumption per capita: it is roughly equal to that in the late 1960's. of course population is much larger now.

re growth- i think growth becomes less material as economies develop. if pieces of silicon can be major contributors to gdp it has very different environmental and energy-demand implications that if we generate that same bit of gdp by producing steel. is it possible that growth can continue but its energy content decline rapidly? but this ignores the problem of all the 3rd world people who want 1st world lifestyles.

getting back to your original point, why is the increased energy demand that you predict a problem? for example, is it because - in this country at least - we've taken nuclear off the table? or is it the heat generated? please specify why the energy demand you forecast isn't "feasible" and in what way that's a "problem."

There are probably 5 good treads in your inquiries jk. Let's move this over to a new thread and see if we can begin to find some answers.

[lektrode]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

....
getting back to your original point, why is the increased energy demand that you predict a problem? for example, is it because - in this country at least - we've taken nuclear off the table? or is it the heat generated? please specify why the energy demand you forecast isn't "feasible" and in what way that's a "problem."

seems to me thats EXACTLY the problem...
and who can say that development of this politically fumbled/neglected option wouldnt have resulted in a 'moore's law' increase in energy resources?

if the anti-nuke luddite brigade hadnt 'shutdown' the industry at the seabrook NH yankee site in 1976, bankrupting the states largest elec utility in the process (which was only temporary, as the plant was completed and put online IN SPITE of the clamshell alliance goofy antics, thus causing KWH prices to launch, putting me OUT of a quite promising biz in the 80's, but thats beside the point)

i would offer that a whole bunch of things would've been different by now:

1 - the largest transfer of wealth in earth's history would never have occurred (from The US to the arabs - well... not counting the bankster bailouts anyway)

2 - a wholesale conversion to coal-fired elec generation would never have happened

3 - acid rain, global warming/climate change, acidification of the oceans etc likely wound never have happened

4 - endless war for oil would never have happened, along with ENDLESS BUDGET DEFICITS TO PAY FOR IT ALL

5 - we likely would've had all the roads all choked up with ELECTRIC CARS BY NOW

why i thot it hilarious back in 2006 that the luddites were 'celebrating the 30th anniversary their success' when they exclaimed:
"we were right back then and we're still right today"

when the facts of whats occurred since would strongly suggest that THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG!

and IMHO - BLAME FOR ALL OF WHATS OCCURRED SINCE 1976 CAN AND SHOULD BE DUMPED IN THEIR LAPS!

and why i still say that DEM party policies/politics - esp their twisted-identity politix
have done more to screw The US than ANYTHING osama bin laden could have EVER done to us!

[flintlock]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Both parties are controlled by their radical wings. Until they are replaced by the centrist independents (42% and rising), the two radical parties will obstruct each other forever.

Ah, a voice of reason.

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Fact Checker
Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nominat







Campaign 2016

✕

By Glenn Kessler March 16

The possible strategy behind Obama's Supreme Court pick

Play Video2:26



)

“The Republican members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide, without any input from this committee, that this committee and the Senate as a whole will refuse to consider any nominee this year. It’s a dereliction of our constitutional duty.”

— Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), floor remarks, March 3, 2016

“The Constitution is very clear that we can’t walk away from a constitutional responsibility when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.”

ADVERTISING

— Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), floor remarks, March 3

“The Senate shall advise and consent by voting on that nominee. That is what the plain language of the Constitution requires.”

— Sen. Michael F. Bennet, (D-Colo.), March 2

“The Senate has responsibility to give that nominee a fair consideration with a timely hearing and a timely vote. It was deeply troubling to me and the people that I work for in Wisconsin that the Republican majority would choose not to fulfill their constitutional duty.”

–Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), March 14
The upcoming battle over President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has both parties digging in their heels, with Republicans citing a vague precedent that nominations are not considered in an election year and Democrats claiming that Republicans have a “constitutional responsibility” to at least hold hearings and a vote on a nominee.
We’ve previously looked at how, depending on the circumstances, Democrats and Republicans have flip-flopped on the question of nominations in an election year. We also examined the often-ignored case of William Brennan’s 1956 elevation during the court in an election year.
So let’s tackle this issue. Is there a precedent for the current Republican refusal to consider Obama’s nominee? (We are not trying to single out the lawmakers above, just showing a representative sample of the rhetoric.)
The Facts

One problem with studying this issue is that, because Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure, there are relatively few examples. Over nearly 230 years, there have been only 124 Justices. Presidents have submitted 160 nominations, of whom 148 received action on the floor of the Senate,according to the Congressional Research Service.
These are not huge numbers, though it does indicate that most nominees are considered by the Senate. But there are even fewer examples of vacancies taking place — and being considered — in a presidential election year. Even more unusual is an instance when the presidency is held by one party and Senate is held by an opposing party. (The one recent example, as we noted, is the case of Brennan, but even then, his confirmation hearings did not take place until after the election.)

Though the examples are few, they tend to support the right of Republicans to handle — or not handle —this nomination as they wish.
In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)

Supporters of Jackson opposed this lame-duck nomination, leading to a debate of nine days on the floor of the Senate. Supporters of Adams’s maneuver argued that it was a duty of the president to fill vacant slots, even in the waning days of a presidency. They offered an amendment on the floor:

“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”

But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.)
According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”

Then there’s the case of Justice Henry Baldwin, who died in April 1844. That was also an election year, but the sitting president, John Tyler, was not running for reelection, having been expelled from the Whig Party during his presidency. So in effect, the Whig-controlled Senate was run by an opposition party.
Tyler made nine Supreme Court nominations during his presidency, but only one was approved. He made three nominations to fill Baldwin’s seat, all of which were rejected by the Senate until the new president, James Polk, took office. Polk was a Democrat, and even his first choice for the seat was rejected by the still-majority Whigs.

During the 1852 campaign between Democrat Franklin Pierce and Whig Winfield Scott, Justice John McKinley died in July. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig who was not running for reelection, nominated three candidates — one in August, one in January and one in February. The Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on two candidates and the third withdrew after the Senate postponed a vote until after inauguration. One of Fillmore’s nominations was never even considered by the Senate, while the other was simply tabled.

Pierce thus was given the Supreme Court nomination once he became president. (His nominee was confirmed one day after the nomination was submitted to the Senate.)
We realize these are all very old examples, back before there even was a Republican Party. And there is always an exception to the rule. In 1888, as Democrat Grover Cleveland sought a second term, he nominated Melville Fuller to be chief justice after the death of Morrison Waite. The Republican-controlled Senate was unenthusiastic, but Fuller was finally confirmed 41-20 after a delay. (Cleveland lost the election to Benjamin Harrison, though he had won the popular vote, and then won a rematch in 1892.)
In 1916 and 1932, election-year court vacancies were quickly filled by the Senate, but both occurred when the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. The 1916 situation was unusual because the departing Supreme Court justice, Charles Evans Hughes, resigned after accepting the Republican nomination to challenge President Woodrow Wilson.

The most recent and perhaps relevant example is Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas, at the time an associate justice, to be chief justice. Earl Warren in June had announced he would retire and wanted to make sure Johnson had a chance to nominate his replacement.
Johnson at the time was a lame duck, having decided not seek reelection. While Democrats controlled the Senate, southern Democrats were angry at the Warren Court’s record on jurisprudence — and the Republican presidential nominee, Richard Nixon, had pledged to nominate a southerner as his first Supreme Court pick.

Nineteen Senators, in fact, declared that they would refuse to accept any nomination by Johnson because he was a lame duck. The Fortas nomination eventually ran aground over ethics issues and his close relationship with Johnson, and he eventually withdrew after his nomination failed a cloture vote.

In effect, the 19 senators refusing to consider any Johnson nominee (mostly southern Democrats) created a working opposition majority with Republicans. Thus lawmakers were able to preserve the vacancy for the next president – who nominated a conservative, Warren Burger, as chief justice.

(Note: Some readers have asked why I did not include Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed on Feb. 3, 1988, an election year, by a Democratic-controlled Senate after being nominated by a Republican president. That’s because he was filling a vacancy that opened up on June 26, 1987, well before the election year. Kennedy was the third nominee for the position.)

The Pinocchio Test

As you can see, there is no recent parallel to the current situation: a president filling a sudden vacancy on the court in an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, particularly when the vacancy occurred with nearly a year left in the presidential term.

But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.

"Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)